WHY MOTHER TERESA SHOULD NOT BE A SAINT

mirror.co.uk ^ | Jan. 13, 2003 | Christopher Hitchens

[Nachum]

In the good old/bad old days, the procedure for making a former human being into a saint was well understood.

There had to be an interval of at least seven years after the death before beatification - the first stage in the process - could even be proposed. (This was to insure against any gusts of popular enthusiasm for a local figure who might later prove to be a phoney.)

There had to be proof of two miracles, attributable to the intercession of the deceased.

And there had to be a hearing, at which the advocatus Diaboli, or Devil's Advocate, would be appointed by the Church to make the strongest possible case against the nominee.

I am not a Roman Catholic and the saint-making procedures of the Vatican are really none of my business. But it strikes me as odd that none of the above rules have been followed in the case of the newly-beatified woman who called herself "Mother" Teresa of Calcutta.

She was first put forward for beatification only four years after her death. Only one miracle has been required of her, and duly found to have been performed.

And, instead of appointing a Devil's Advocate, the Vatican invited me to be a witness for the Evil One, and expected me to do the job pro bono.

Their reason for asking was that I made a documentary called Hell's Angel, and wrote a short book entitled The Missionary Position, in which I reviewed Mother Teresa's career as if she had been an ordinary person.

I discovered that she had taken money from rich dictators like the Duvalier gang in Haiti, had been a friend of poverty rather than a friend of the poor, had never given any account of the huge sums of money donated to her, had railed against birth-control in the most overpopulated city on the planet and had been the spokeswoman for the most extreme dogmas of religious fundamentalism.

Actually, it's boasting to say that I "discovered" any of this. It was all there in plain sight for anyone to notice. But in the age of celebrity, nobody had troubled to ask if such a global reputation was truly earned or was simply the result of brilliant public relations.

"Wait a minute," said a TV host in Washington a few nights ago, when I debated all this with Mr John Donahue of the Catholic Defence League. "She built hospitals." No, sir, you wait a minute.

Mother Teresa was given, to our certain knowledge, many tens of millions of pounds. But she never built any hospitals. She claimed to have built almost 150 convents, for nuns joining her own order, in several countries. Was this where ordinary donors thought their money was going?

Furthermore, she received some of this money from the Duvaliers, and from Mr Charles Keating of the notorious Lincoln Savings and Loan of California, and both these sources had acquired the money by - how shall I put it? - borrowing money from the poor and failing to give it back.

How could this possibly be true? Doesn't everyone know that she spent her time kissing the sores of lepers and healing the sick? Ah, but what everyone knows isn't always true. You were more likely to run into Mother Teresa being photographed with Nancy Reagan, or posing with Princess Diana, or in the first-class cabin of Air India (where she had a permanent reservation).

You could see her in Ireland, campaigning against a law which would permit civil divorce and remarriage (though she publicly defended Princess Diana's right to be divorced).

You could encounter her on the podium in Stockholm, accepting yet another huge cheque and telling the Nobel audience that the greatest threat to world peace was... abortion. (Since she added that contraception was morally as bad as abortion, she essentially held the view that condoms and coils were a deadly threat to world peace. The Church does not insist on that degree of fundamentalism.)

And when she got sick, she would check herself into the Mayo Clinic or some other temple of American medicine. As one who has visited her primitive "hospice" for the dying in Calcutta, I should call that a wise decision. Nobody would go there except to check out, in one way or another.

"Give a man a reputation as an early riser," said Mark Twain "and that man can sleep till noon." Give a woman a reputation for holiness and compassion and apparently nothing she does can cause her to lose it.

Of Albanian descent and a keen nationalist, she visited the country when it was still a brutal dictatorship and "the world's first atheist state" to pay tribute to its grim Stalinist leader.

She fawned upon her shrewd protector Indira Gandhi at a time when the Indian government was imposing forced sterilisations. Above all, she urged the poor to think of their sufferings as a gift from God.

And she opposed the only thing that has ever been known to cure poverty - the empowerment of women in poor countries by giving them some say in their own reproduction.

Now, so they tell us, a woman in Bengal has recovered from a tumour after praying to Mother Teresa. I have received information from both the family and the physicians that says it was good medical treatment that did the job. Who knows?

I must say that I don't believe in miracles but if they do exist there are deserving cases which don't, in spite of fervent prayers, ever benefit from them.

When Mr Donahue was asked if he believed the statutory second miracle would occur, he said that he thought it would. I said that I thought so, too.

But I have already seen a collective hallucination occur as regards Mother Teresa, though it was produced by the less supernatural methods of modern, uncritical mass media.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair.

[Aquinasfan]

When the bible says the church, how do you know which church he is talking about?

The Bible records the fact that Jesus founded a Church (not churches) against which the gates of hell would not prevail. His Church has to be unified doctrinally since he tells us to take our disputes to "the Church." Besides, what would be the point of founding many churches with countless, contradictory doctrines?

How can one recognize Christ's Church? It must be One, Holy, Catholic (universal) and Apostolic. We can trace Apostolic succession through the scriptural (Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Matthew 23:2-3) and historical fact of the papacy (Chair of Peter).

[Joshua]

"When Paul wrote letters to various churches, did he have authority over them? "

Paul didn't seem to think so

Col 1:24-25 24 Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. 25 I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness-- (NIV)

1 Cor 9:27 27 No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. (NIV)

1 Cor 2:1-3 1 When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. (NIV)

Strange words from a man who would claim authority in the context you're trying to put it in.

While we're at it let's look at Peter

1 Pet 5:1-3 1 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed:

2 Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers-- not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve;

3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. (NIV)

Granted Peter and Paul were at a disadvantage not having the writings of the early church fathers as you do. They obviously had no idea how much power was to be bestowed on them.

[ACAC]

I find that when we get into these Catholic-Protestant debates we are just talking past each other. Our assumptions about history and scripture are not the same. I think we need to agree to disagree about these few issues and unite to fight our common enemy. We could end abortion in this country if we would just work together.

[Joshua]

". His Church has to be unified doctrinally since he tells us to take our disputes to "the Church." "

All this verse means is that you take it to the elders in charge of your congregation.

Trouble in Any of these churches was not sent to a central body for a final consesus.

"Besides, what would be the point of founding many churches with countless, contradictory doctrines? "

You know that is a dishonest statement. The Christian church is unified in the Gospel of Christ as Savior and any that don't follow this are not.

You claim the RCC is unified in doctrine and yet even in here we see catholics ignoring other catholics because of the many schisms in catholicism

Hardly the unified body you dishonestly try to put forth.

[Joshua]

Be back later

[Aquinasfan]

Col 1:24-25 24 Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

His body? (not "bodies")The church? (not "churches")

(Then as now there was one Church but many churches, as in local churches.)

2 Thessalonians 2:15

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings[ 2:15 Or traditions] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Should the Thessalonians have held to the teachings Paul passed on by word of mouth or by letter? Why? What authority did Paul have to command obedience to his teachings?

[Aquinasfan]

Our assumptions about history and scripture are not the same. I think we need to agree to disagree about these few issues and unite to fight our common enemy. We could end abortion in this country if we would just work together.

But why not do both? When I had time I was on the board of a non-denominational crisis pregnancy center. Indeed, we can do both. And both are important. In fact, both are matters of life and death. In fact, it can be argued that matters of "spiritual death" are more important:

Matthew 10:28

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Doctrine is important. A simple example: Is baptism necessary for salvation?

However, our arguments or discussions should always be marked by charity.

1 Corinthians 13

1If I speak in the tongues[1] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

I've read your posts and they are always marked by charity and meekness. I know that argumentation can be tedious and exhausting, but:

1 Peter 3:15

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect...

[Aquinasfan]

". His Church has to be unified doctrinally since he tells us to take our disputes to "the Church." "

All this verse means is that you take it to the elders in charge of your congregation.

And what if the "elders" in my congregation disagree with the "elders" in another congregation (that in your understanding is part of the same unified Church)? Would that represent justice or truth? This is important because the Bible calls the Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth." (1 Tim 3:15)

Trouble in Any of these churches was not sent to a central body for a final consesus.

The history of the early Church is marked by disagreements regarding doctrine and the suppression of heresy. (,Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, The Donatists, Pelagianism)

"Besides, what would be the point of founding many churches with countless, contradictory doctrines? "

You know that is a dishonest statement.

On the contrary. One Church, one body of doctrine (the Magisterium), one Catechism.

The Christian church is unified in the Gospel of Christ as Savior and any that don't follow this are not.

Is baptism necessary for salvation? Is double-predestination true? These are not ancillary issues.

You claim the RCC is unified in doctrine and yet even in here we see catholics ignoring other catholics because of the many schisms in catholicism

Catholics must assent to dogmas promulgated as essential ("de fide" teachings). Other teachings are of lesser authority. Disciplines (pastoral Church directives) must be adhered to out of obedience but as pastoral directives are subject to change for cultural and historical exigencies.

Hardly the unified body you dishonestly try to put forth.

I don't claim that all individuals who call themselves "Catholic" are in fact Catholic, nor do I claim that good, practicing Catholics never hold heretical positions (out of ignorance).

[ACAC]

If we can debate in the way that you suggested, then I could agree with you. It just seems that many debates that begin well end badly. I am actually undecided on the question of baptism being necessary for salvation. I was raised Baptist and was taught it was not necessary for salvation, although it was also taught that it was very important. Now I am Lutheran as a compromise with my wife who was raised Catholic. Lutherans believe that it is necessary unless you come to a saving faith in Jesus and then die before you have a chance to be baptized.

[Joshua]

"And what if the "elders" in my congregation disagree with the "elders" in another congregation (that in your understanding is part of the same unified Church)? Would that represent justice or truth? This is important because the Bible calls the Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth." (1 Tim 3:15) "

The bible would be used as the final authority to resolve it.

Today the RCC can't even deal with the scandals of it's elders. We see years of cover-ups and attempts to shield lawbreakers from prosecution. We also see the faithful in here wringing their hands and having their faith tested like this is something new to catholicism.
The fact is that if you look back through your history scandal is the norm, not the exception.

A look at the papacy shows a long line of perverts, pimps, adulterers,and thieves. We can even find a Pope who exhumed the corpse of the previous pope and condemned him as a heretic in court. All these so called "Vicars of Christ" are the most devout and worthy in the RCC. Makes one wonder if this was the best what the rest was like.

When anyone confronts you with these truths your answer is "They are human".
The bible says if you walk in the Spirit you don't walk in darkness. It's obvious many of these popes weren't led by the Spirit. And since they weren't what authority did they have?

This is your example of of the "pillar and foundation of truth?
Sorry it is hard for any bible believing christian to take anything the RCC claims seriously. They can't take care of their own house, I don't want them leading mine.

"On the contrary. One Church, one body of doctrine (the Magisterium), one Catechism. "

Odd how neither Christ or the Bible is in your description of a church.

One Church (Believers in Christ),one body of doctrine (The Holy Spirit), one Bible and Lord

"I don't claim that all individuals who call themselves "Catholic" are in fact Catholic, nor do I claim that good, practicing Catholics never hold heretical positions (out of ignorance)."

Let me understand you. You admit that good catholics can hold heretical positions yet if heretical views are found in protestant churches this is proof of it not being the true church.
A bit of hypocrisy?

"His body? (not "bodies")The church? (not "churches") (Then as now there was one Church but many churches, as in local churches.) "

No. One body - believers, One Church - believers, many parts, but one head, Jesus Christ.

"Should the Thessalonians have held to the teachings Paul passed on by word of mouth or by letter? Why? What authority did Paul have to command obedience to his teachings? "

Do you pull taffy for a living? You sure are good at trying to stretch things.

Paul was a messenger. He received the gospel through revelation from Jesus. He didn't receive it from any man. (Rules out Peter and the Majesterium)

The answer to your question is found two verse before the one you posted. It was God, through the work of the Holy Spirit, who confirmed in their hearts what he spoke or wrote was true.

II Th 2:13-14 13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

14 He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. (NIV)

[GirlShortstop]

I made a documentary ..., and wrote a short book ..., in which I reviewed Mother Teresa's career as if she had been an ordinary person.

Well, well, well... Hitchens has admitted that Mother Theresa was EXTRAORDINARY.   Love it!

[Cvengr]

We agree to this point, now if one is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, would that person be keeping in the Holy Spirit by attempting to contact the spirits of other dead persons in their prayers for appeal?

Seems to me that this would lead to placing some other god before Him, (namely a faith that an appeal to other persons could lead to a more righteous or just action by Him rather than by His plan via Jesus Christ), hence lead to unrighteousness and a retraction of the Holy Spirit or a quenching or grieving of the Holy Spirit from being allowed to fill the temple. Indwelling would remain, but repentence and return to Him first would be required to allow Him to return to filling the believer's spirit.

But rather than me posing my own reason, review of Scripture might be our best resolve.

[RobbyS]

If those people--the Saints--are also "in the Spirit" then they are not "other"spirits but have conformed their wills with His. So it is not different from consorting with those in our congregation and asking for their prayers.

[mdmathis6]

Do you remember the story of Paul's conversion.."it is hard for the you to kick against the "goads"(cattle prod)" Go read that in Acts then you'll know where Paul Got his authority...the Bible states the Apostles came to recognize his authority as well...as history states Paul became active some 5 years after Christ's ascent to heaven, his primary mission was to preach Christ first to the Jews, then as they wouldn't listen, to the Gentiles. He had great successes, but suffered many beatings, jailings and persecutions.

[mdmathis6]

By the time Paul was in his final imprisonment, we know that the Gospel accounts were beginning to be set down in written form. These were shared and passed around, as were various letters from the Saints, giving advice as to practise, and admonishments to avoid sin and to love one another. The Old Testament was used a great deal as well, especially to help new converts under-stand their guilt under the law, and how Christ was to be that final sacrifice for the cleansing of sin so that we may be freed from the fear of death, to live free under God's grace.

Paul, was considered to be one of the Apostles, like Peter, John, Phillip, Thomas, etcetera, though he had no direct authority over any of the churches per se....but you can bet when he had some-thing to say...say to the church at Corinth, you can bet they accepted it as though Christ him-self had spoken to them.
He had the power of the Holy Spirit, with gifts of tongues, and healing....you didn't mess with him, lest you be struck blind, like one soul was for three days, for attempting to resist Paul's witness to a local governor on an island he was ship-wrecked on...He was the Billy Grahm of his day...and the greatest missionary that ever lived...his authority was recognized...even by demons!

[Cvengr]

The key difference is that they are separated from the flesh, which has now returned to dust and has not been resurrected.

Considerable admonishment was afforded to not consult familiar spirits in the Old Testament. I'm not clear how those laws are now not to be honored.

If they remain sound, then those who appeal to the dead are guilty of sin and even if the dead are Saints and one with Him, they ought not have a relationship with those alive in the flesh, but dead to Him in sin.

Do you have a link or Scriptural reference allowing such appeals and how Old Testament law is no longer applicable in this situation?

[Conservative til I die]

Matthew 16:18 "....You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." He did not say "on you I will build my church" in the specific sense. The commentaries and my pastors have told me that Jesus was juxtaposing and expanding on an Idea that a foundation was being laid using the old testament prophets and apostles by which the Eternal transtemporal church was being built and is continuing to be built on such that are being saved daily.

So basically your pastors had to do some serious hoop-jumping to come up with that argument?

[mdmathis6]

Nahh, just the ones who are Greek scholars and know the texts....Don't ignore what I said about the context shift in the Greek in that passage in Matthew and don't ignore Ephesians chapter 2 that I also mentioned...All the Apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church,"being joined" thru Christ , the "chief corner-stone". Peter in deed was the first of the great preachers, being empowered by the Holy Spirit...he preached the first great sermons(thru which thousands of Jews were saved in Israel) after the baptism of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost(ironically the feast of "First Fruits", around the time of the first barley harvests of the year in Israel). He was indeed a foundation stone, being used by God to kick off the Christian faith, setting it in action in the world...other foundation stones were Paul, John, all of the other apostles, and old testament prophets with Christ being the chief corner stone. The "serious hoop-hopping" comes when you try to extrapolate out some fictitious apostolic line from Peter and build a pagan religion around it that has no relation to the "temple of living stones" that Christ was building, through the doctrinal foundations of faith...laid down by Peter and the apostles and Old testament prophets(all instructed by the Holy Spirit)...Look at Ephesians 2:18-22 again. There is no blue-print that sets in motion the rise of the Vatican...It was church state political machinations thru which the cult of Peter would arise...and the Eastern Orthodox broke away from it!

[RobbyS]

The saints are not familiar spirits, so any "law" would not apply. The Church is alive to the existence of demons, and in any case of supposed visions of the saints/the Virgin Mary judges them dangerous or not depending on what they tell the visionaries. If they tell them what is contrary to Church doctrine, then the Church will reject these visions no matter how many wonders may accompany them.

But regarding prayers addressed to the saints, this is essentially like asking prayers from any other Church member. What in Scripture supports your contention that the saints in heaven are indifferent to our needs?

[RobbyS]

If Roman Catholicism is a "pagan Religion," then so is Eastern Orthodoxy. But the cult of Peter is based on the prominent role that he plays in the New Testament.