Mommie Dearest (Slate trashes Mother Teresa!)

Slate- MSN ^ | 10/20/03 | Christopher Hitchens

[Barney Gumble]

I think it was Macaulay who said that the Roman Catholic Church deserved great credit for, and owed its longevity to, its ability to handle and contain fanaticism. This rather oblique compliment belongs to a more serious age. What is so striking about the "beatification" of the woman who styled herself "Mother" Teresa is the abject surrender, on the part of the church, to the forces of showbiz, superstition, and populism.

It's the sheer tawdriness that strikes the eye first of all. It used to be that a person could not even be nominated for "beatification," the first step to "sainthood," until five years after his or her death. This was to guard against local or popular enthusiasm in the promotion of dubious characters. The pope nominated MT a year after her death in 1997. It also used to be that an apparatus of inquiry was set in train, including the scrutiny of an advocatus diaboli or "devil's advocate," to test any extraordinary claims. The pope has abolished this office and has created more instant saints than all his predecessors combined as far back as the 16th century.

As for the "miracle" that had to be attested, what can one say? Surely any respectable Catholic cringes with shame at the obviousness of the fakery. A Bengali woman named Monica Besra claims that a beam of light emerged from a picture of MT, which she happened to have in her home, and relieved her of a cancerous tumor. Her physician, Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, says that she didn't have a cancerous tumor in the first place and that the tubercular cyst she did have was cured by a course of prescription medicine. Was he interviewed by the Vatican's investigators? No. (As it happens, I myself was interviewed by them but only in the most perfunctory way. The procedure still does demand a show of consultation with doubters, and a show of consultation was what, in this case, it got.)

According to an uncontradicted report in the Italian paper L'Eco di Bergamo, the Vatican's secretary of state sent a letter to senior cardinals in June, asking on behalf of the pope whether they favored making MT a saint right away. The pope's clear intention has been to speed the process up in order to perform the ceremony in his own lifetime. The response was in the negative, according to Father Brian Kolodiejchuk, the Canadian priest who has acted as postulator or advocate for the "canonization." But the damage, to such integrity as the process possesses, has already been done.

During the deliberations over the Second Vatican Council, under the stewardship of Pope John XXIII, MT was to the fore in opposing all suggestions of reform. What was needed, she maintained, was more work and more faith, not doctrinal revision. Her position was ultra-reactionary and fundamentalist even in orthodox Catholic terms. Believers are indeed enjoined to abhor and eschew abortion and contraception, but they are not required to affirm that abortion and contraception are the greatest threat to world peace, as MT fantastically asserted to a dumbfounded audience when receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. Believers are likewise enjoined to abhor and eschew divorce, but they are not required to insist that a ban on divorce and remarriage be a part of the state constitution, as MT demanded in a referendum in Ireland (which her side narrowly lost) in 1996. Later in that same year, she told Ladies Home Journal that she was pleased by the divorce of her friend Princess Diana, because the marriage had so obviously been an unhappy one …

This returns us to the medieval corruption of the church, which sold indulgences to the rich while preaching hellfire and continence to the poor. MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan. Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had been—she preferred California clinics when she got sick herself—and her order always refused to publish any audit. But we have her own claim that she opened 500 convents in more than a hundred countries, all bearing the name of her own order. Excuse me, but this is modesty and humility?

The rich world has a poor conscience, and many people liked to alleviate their own unease by sending money to a woman who seemed like an activist for "the poorest of the poor." People do not like to admit that they have been gulled or conned, so a vested interest in the myth was permitted to arise, and a lazy media never bothered to ask any follow-up questions. Many volunteers who went to Calcutta came back abruptly disillusioned by the stern ideology and poverty-loving practice of the "Missionaries of Charity," but they had no audience for their story. George Orwell's admonition in his essay on Gandhi—that saints should always be presumed guilty until proved innocent—was drowned in a Niagara of soft-hearted, soft-headed, and uninquiring propaganda.

One of the curses of India, as of other poor countries, is the quack medicine man, who fleeces the sufferer by promises of miraculous healing. Sunday was a great day for these parasites, who saw their crummy methods endorsed by his holiness and given a more or less free ride in the international press. Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. More than that, we witnessed the elevation and consecration of extreme dogmatism, blinkered faith, and the cult of a mediocre human personality. Many more people are poor and sick because of the life of MT: Even more will be poor and sick if her example is followed. She was a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud, and a church that officially protects those who violate the innocent has given us another clear sign of where it truly stands on moral and ethical questions.

[Barney Gumble]

I have to say Slate’s article on Mother Teresa is the most despicable form of “journalism” have seen in recent months. Since the left hates all forms of Christianity, all Christians, (but will defend all Muslims), they try to trash Mother Teresa. Of all people.

First off, the same journalists who never think about using quotes around “President” Saddam (even though he was never fairly elected) puts quotes around Mother Teresa. Then the article goes onto undermine all of her work for the poor and finishing out by calling her a “fraud” and saying “Many more people are poor and sick” because of her.

I can’t think of a more selfless person in the 20th century than Mother Teresa. She lived her life to help other and she lived in poverty. Why didn’t the esteem author, Christopher Hitchens, talk about the real hypocrites in society, such as the Arriana Huffington’s, and Jesse Jackson’s of the world… who claim to be for “the poor” but live and travel lavishly. Mother Teresa practiced what she did, never asked for thanks, and never was hypocritical.

This seems to all boil down to the atheist left, trying to demonize and undermine the accomplishments of Christians by throwing mud. All I can think is, shame on you Mr. Hitchens. You are spewing with hypocrisy.

[Terriergal]

I can’t think of a more selfless person in the 20th century than Mother Teresa

Nor can I... but would she have said it was OK to bend the rules for her? That seems to have been his whole point. I don't think that point however, deserves as much attention as he is giving it.

[Servant of the 9]

The only real difference between Mother Teresa and Jesse Jackson is that she managed to con the pope.

So9

[F.J. Mitchell]

Mother Teresa, is a saint in every sense of the word. Such attacks as this one, is unworthy of a response.

Your response to this hateful diatribe, says all that need be said.

Ditto's and BTTT!

[F.J. Mitchell]

Mother Teresa, is a saint in every sense of the word. Such attacks as this one, is unworthy of a response.

Your response to this hateful diatribe, says all that need be said.

Ditto's and BTTT!

[annyokie]

Chrisopher Hitchens is a long time Mother Theresa basher. Nothing new here.

[OpusatFR]

St. Francis set the record for beatification. Mother Teresa isn't going to come close.

[inPhase]

Thanks, we can let this magnifient human being answer them:


Excerpt from the Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech of the Leader of the Order of the Missionaries of Charity
Mother Teresa:
"I choose the poverty of our poor people. But I am grateful to receive (the Nobel)


in the name of
the hungry, the naked, the homeless, of the crippled, of the blind, of the lepers, of 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."
http://almaz.com/nobel/peace/1979a.html

Still moves me. Try to write this well, Slate.

[stands2reason]

That seems to have been his whole point.

No. His point was that she wasn't liberal, and he hates her for it.

[veronica]

Hitchens has always had a thing about Mother Teresa. This isn't new.

[Leroy S. Mort]

I have to say Slate’s article on Mother Teresa is the most despicable form of “journalism” have seen in recent months.

Yeah but this is by Chris Hitchins, who's kinda "worshipped" around here by some.

[FormerLib]

When I saw who wrote it, I knew I didn't even have to read the article. Hitchens is consumed with a hatred of Mother Theresa. I hope the Roman Catholic Freepers spare themselves even a passing glance at Hitchens' diatribe.

[shempy]

I think Hitchens is right.

[Servant of the 9]

Yeah but this is by Chris Hitchins, who's kinda "worshipped" around here by some.

I admire Hitchins because more than left or right, he hates hypocracy and fraud in public life.
That is why he so violently opposed the Clintons and why he wrote a book telling the other side of the "Mother" Teresa story.

This article is not a screed off the top of his head, but the result of several years of research into what she was really doing as opposed to what she told the media she was doing.

So9

[The Red Zone]

A Bengali woman named Monica Besra claims that a beam of light emerged from a picture of MT, which she happened to have in her home, and relieved her of a cancerous tumor. Her physician, Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, says that she didn't have a cancerous tumor in the first place and that the tubercular cyst she did have was cured by a course of prescription medicine. Was he interviewed by the Vatican's investigators? No. (As it happens, I myself was interviewed by them but only in the most perfunctory way. The procedure still does demand a show of consultation with doubters, and a show of consultation was what, in this case, it got.)

If this is accurate, it sure sounds weird. You'd think the Vatican would want a better example before proclaiming "miracle!" For my money MT probably is a saint in the biblical sense, but this is supposed to be proof that she can be called on for miracles?

[Terriergal]

Possibly. It was hard to tell because he seemed on one hand to say she hinted at liberal ideas being OK while at the same time refusing to endorse doctrinal revision. He seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth (surprise surprise) so it was hard for me to tell which angle he was coming at her from.

But still - the question arises - if five years is the rule, why was it bent for Teresa and Francis?

[Hacksaw]

I admire Hitchins because more than left or right, he hates hypocracy and fraud in public life. That is why he so violently opposed the Clintons and why he wrote a book telling the other side of the "Mother" Teresa story.

Sounds more like he picks targets to get the greatest amount of attention.

[concerned about politics]

. Slate trashes Mother Teresa!

That's because she helped the needy through the kindness of her heart and without a government program. It's liberal blasphamy. The Satanic minions must demonize her.
Why, what if her message were to catch on, and all people helped each other get off the welfare rolls! Satan would be outraged! Free will to help others cannot not be allowed in Satans work house!

[Servant of the 9]

Sounds more like he picks targets to get the greatest amount of attention.

He picks the biggest phonies he can find.

So9

[Terriergal]

The same unsubstantiated claims of miracles and manifestations (gold dust in the air, gold teeth appearing spontaneously in people's mouths) are going on in the charismatic protestant (mostly nondenominational) churches. I get tired of it. Although they don't call on any particular saint, they tend to use tithing as a focal point - or point-of-contact items such as "prayer cloths" that they send out and for a donation of X dollars you can have your OWN prayer cloth personally touched by (televangelist name). For 2X dollars you can get your own prayer cloth personally touched and PRAYED OVER by (televangelist name). Blah blah. It gets ludicrous.