Mother Teresa: patron saint of sceptics?
A collection of has been published in support of her canonisation. Nothing surprising about that. Except that these letters reveal a personal struggle with faith lasting half a century.
In a letter to the Rev. Michael Van Der Peet, in September 1979, she writes:
Jesus has a very special love for you. As for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great that I look and do not see, listen and do not hear -- the tongue moves [in prayer] but does not speak.
The letters are collected together in Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light (Doubleday). They are compiled and edited by the Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk, who observes that for the last nearly half-century of her life she felt no presence of God whatsoever, "neither in her heart or in the eucharist."
There will be much written this week (and ) about Mother Teresa's faith (or lack thereof) as we approach the tenth anniversary of her death (September 5, 1997). Part of that discussion will inevitably involve a review of on the reputation of the person known in her lifetime as a "living saint".
Comments
Every believer struggles with questions of faith and this great saint is no different. If Hitchens did anything comparable to Teresa's good deeds he'd be in a position to criticise her.
'Good deeds'!?!? being a fundamentalist bigot, being chummy with right-wing psychopathic dictators, being responsible for the deaths of 100, 000's of children, being resonsible for 100,000's of people living in poverty and ignorance etc etc
thank goodness The Hitch isn't like that!
I'm afraid I agree with Hitchens on this one.
It's easy to speak ill of the dead. What evidence is there exactly that Mother Teresa is a sinner rather than a saint? This lady saved the lives of countless children and made the world think about global poverty during the greedy 80s. She's a saint by any definition.
If Mother Teresa's memory can be defamed by people so easily, then none of us stand any chance. She was human and she made mistakes, she wasnt infallible, she was a sinner. She was also filled with God's love, even if she doubted God's presence in her own life. These letters add complexity to her story, and that's a very good thing. I believe she is a model of Christian obedience and service and that makes her a saint in my eyes. I don't need any other evidence for that.
Those who wish to attack her are shameful, since they are attacking someone they did not know.
Hitchens is a drink-drenched idiot.
Check out Hitch's book.
She did save some children's lives however far, far more died in agony because of her ie., banning contraception in Calcutta. And onto global poverty etc is this the same Mother Theresa who when she died had £50 million in her bank account!? earmarked for her own order not to help the poor indeed she revelled in the suffering of the poor.
She was cruel, heartless evil crone and the world is a better place without her.
Her and Princess Di were the 2 most successful emotional conjobs of the 20th Century.
DD, fair's fair ... mother teresa raised millions for her work and lived a simple life dying in near poverty. It's a lie to say she had 50m in HER bank account. That makes her sound like some american tv evangelist - or a millionaire writer feather bedding his nest from boks attacking saints.
She had 50million in her bank account(so much for living in poverty)the money was not ear-marked to help the poor(which she never did anyway-in fact she made the situation for the poor far, far worse)the money was for her order. Of course the money also came from such people as the Duvalier mob in Haiti who raped the poor to give to Mother Theresa-who praised this awful regime!
Sam don't believe any of hype surrounding Mother Theresa-it's the biggest emotional con-job of the 20th century.
And I would take Hitchens over Mother Theresa any day-I'm sorry Sam but evil crones who atre responsible for the deaths of 100,000's of children aren't my cup of tea.
Helenanne #4 says-
"It's easy to speak ill of the dead."
Hitchens appears to have no problem speaking ill of the living, either.
"What evidence is there exactly that Mother Teresa is a sinner rather than a saint?"
Did you read his article at all?
"This lady saved the lives of countless children and made the world think about global poverty during the greedy 80s."
The "greedy 80s"? Good grief, woman; what an axe you have to grind. The eighties of Live Aid and the founding of Comic Relief?
I agree with helenanne. I did read hitchens article and all he is doing is attacking a great person who had flaws as well as much to commend her. Hitchens habitually overstates any point he is making, so its obvious that he will wish to condemn Teresa to hell. He is campaigning against any religious figure whover they are. If he wrote a book about jesus, he;d condemn him to hell too.
Like JW I am hearing a lot of emotional responses but no specific refutations of Hitchen's points(and ad hominens)
Jane- I agree, actually. The Hitch does as many of us do, and that is to react and respond to the attitudes and approaches around us. He's certainly doing that with Mother Theresa, though he makes some good points in the process.
It is understandable that Hitchens has these feelings (that is all they are) for MT because he hates the Catholic Church. That is his guiding principle for the book. He wrote for Nation which gives an insight into his own particular worldviews.
I also observed that the book has no footnotes or citations that raise questions of its credibility.
The title-good grief; how adolescent. So it is possible to judge a book by its cover.
Again more "emotional" responses based on "feeling" and more ad hominen's.
For further reading on MT see 'Mother Thersa-The final verdict' by Aroup Chatterjee(this one has citations).
The Catholic Church certainly took Hitchens seriously as they asked him to the conclave to take the Devil's advocate position on the possible granting of sainthood on MT.
Incidentally Hitchens has also attacked Protestant, Muslim and Jewish fundamenatlists-quite pathetic accusing him of "hating the Catholic Church"-I think he hold them all in equal comtempt(yep the Catholic Church is great! billions paid out in cases of the cover-up of the rape of children, the attitude to contraception in the third world etc etc).
Guess it was just a "feeling" that she got money from charmers such as Papa Doc Du valier and praised him for helping the poor-when he got his money by raping the poor! even though the world and his wife knew he was a psycho! and when she got the money actually did nowt to help the poor.
Wow, Dylan Dog you are very passionate for Hitchens or the views he holds.
First, one does not commit the rhetorical fallacy you have mentioned, ad nauseam, if it has a bearing on the discussion. Hitchens' worldview and motivation (hate) is valid. It is easy to determine this motivation from reading his other columns.
Secondly, the discussion is restricted to MT. She was a missionary for the RCC. Mentioning that Hitichens attacked other religions or forms of the Christian faith hardly has anything to do with the issue.
Thirdly, the reputation of the RCC in the areas that you mention doesn't add anything either. Also you seem to think that I have a particular affection for the RCC.
Fourthly, sarcasm implies that you are upset. You have responded emotionally. Yet you criticise others who do not share your view for this.
Fifthly, emotional appeals or responses are not always a bad thing. You need some lessons in the appropriate use of pathos.
Finally, nearly all sources of funding can be criticised. Maybe she could have done more to help the poor. So what if she experienced doubts concerning her faith. You have not properly understood my post. The focus was Hitchens not MT. I just think it is a badly writen book. I think his arguments are based more on his assumptions rather than on MT's character and deeds. The RCC taking Hitchens seriously, as you say, does not give his views credibility; as you have later implied that the church can't be trusted-what with the rape, and the attitudes to contraception.
Cker-
"Wow, Dylan Dog you are very passionate for Hitchens or the views he holds."
Either the views are correct or they're not. Dylan Dog has every right to find himself in agreement with Hitchens on these issues and every right to do so with gusto. Why would this bother you? You don't hold any views passionately?
"Hitchens' worldview and motivation (hate) is valid. It is easy to determine this motivation from reading his other columns."
Are you saying that hatred is the only reason one can dislike religion? If not, what makes you so sure that your ability to "determine" Hitchens' "motivation" is good enough to do so with any accuracy? Thousands of others (like myself) have read his columns and heard him speak and disagree with that assessment entirely.
"Secondly, the discussion is restricted to MT. She was a missionary for the RCC. Mentioning that Hitichens attacked other religions or forms of the Christian faith hardly has anything to do with the issue."
It was a direct response that Dylan Dog made to your comment in #13 saying that Hitchens' "guiding principle for the book" was his hatred of the RCC. Dylan Dog was simply making the point that Hitchens' criticisms of the RCC come as part of a wider criticism of religion in general. I'm not sure what delusion prompts you to believe that 'hatred' per se has anything to do with it. But you've probably "determined" it from his columns.
"Fourthly, sarcasm implies that you are upset. You have responded emotionally. Yet you criticise others who do not share your view for this."
Sarcasm implies no such thing. Do you think I'm upset? I'm not, but I've already used sarcasm in this response. I think it's flat-out amusing to note the vigour with which you've constructed this argument: DD used sarcasm, therefore DD was upset, therefore DD responded emotionally, therefore DD's criticism of others on the basis that they have responded emotionally must be invalid. How does any of this convoluted 'logic' work?
"Fifthly, emotional appeals or responses are not always a bad thing. You need some lessons in the appropriate use of pathos."
You wish to educate others in the use of pathos? See above.
Cker
I see JW has answered you, nothing much more to add except...
I do not agree with Hitchen's "passionately" on all things ie., Iraq. Actually disagreed with a few things in 'God is not great', however I do agree with him on this point.
"hate" is too strong a word to describe Hitchen's view of the Roman Catholic church and says that this "hatred" blinds him-sorry but I have not seen a shred of evidence to back this up.
I do admit that I was sarcastic but would hardly say emotional!
In any case I still have not seen any refutations of the specific points Hitchen's makes just ad hominen's.
Ps. Check out the other book I mentioned.
DD, your points are good, but can I make an impassioned plea to all and sundry not to use i.e. when they mean e.g.? There is a very important difference, and it really irks those of us who are pedants.
;-)
I think everyone now accepts that Mother Theresa was no Mother Theresa. The notion of applying sainthood to people is frankly absurd (Patrick and John Paul being good examples). It would be better to try to dissect out any virtues, and hold those up for emulation, as well as vices for avoidance. At least it might avoid the ridiculous spectacle of idiots claiming that writing someone's name on a piece of paper cured their Parkinson's. I'll believe *that* one when I see the before and after brain biopsies!
-A
I have studied Mother Teresa and her life for 20 years. I was an official witness at her beatification. Personally I think she would have been more human if she had doubts when hectoring women that artificial contraception was a cardinal sin. Non-Catholics are not bothered if she had doubts about her faith. Fortunately she was NOT a big influence in Calcutta; there are abortion clinics within few hundred metres of her HQ. Minimal charity and and maximum publicity was her lifelong mantra.
DD, this is a pretty reasonable contradiction to most of Hitchen's statements of fact.
I read that Mother had requested that these letters be destroyed. I am very saddenned that her petition was not granted.
As far as her momentary lapse of faith it only makes her human. A human who knew how to love.
May she rest in peace.
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God......Jesus also went as far as to say that ONLY God alone is good. This special lady was as human as anyone else...not perfect,no one but God is perfect. She was a great humanitarian. God alone is the Judge of the living and the dead...not we the imperfect people. I respect her sacrifice and ONLY God knew her heart.