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.

[Catholicguy]

<>You will have to excuse my Christian friends.

They were raised with a certain history they can't let go of. They read the Early Church Fathers and they think those Church Fathers attest to such things as the Mass, Sacraments, Papal Primacy, Purgatory ect.

I think those of us who REALLY know the history, know that right from the get-go, Jesus established His Christian Church purely on an act of will and truth was immaterial.

Look, what you believe is immaterial. Let's all admit that and move on to Faith. Faith is nothing but an intellectual and spiritual assent that Jesus IS Our Lord and Saviour and that He has done everyting and there is nothin for us to do. You will have to excuse Aquinas and conservative, they are just do-gooding pagans. What the hell do they know, compared to you?<>

[mdmathis6]

you wrote"What the hell do they know, compared to you?<>"

All I ever knew was that when I accepted Christ, a great light came into the darkness of my being, and at times when I've stumbled, the light was lessened, when I walk in faith, the light is greater....(carrot and stick!)

A great revival is needed amongst believers in Christ of all back-grounds, the times are dark and those who love dark-ness are more detirmined then ever to snuff out the light...not that they'll succeed, but many who need God, who need to hear the truth, are not getting that truth because of the distractions our various churches are caught up in....I've used scripture (foundational) ones to support my views and I am aware that I am not God, I don't know every thing...but there is a "temple of living stones" that Christ is building across space and time...and the gates of Hell shall not "prevail against it!"

Your above comment was pointed at me, I realize it, but let me turn it back to you; it's the "HELL" lost souls don't know about, that should concern you and me, and our poor sad churches(Catholic and Protestant).

Lest you think my handle is a pseudonym, My name is Michael D. Mathis, I am an RN and living in NY State. I'll put my name on the line and confess Christ publically, as Lord, GOD IN FLESH, and my Saviour. Am I perfect?...naaaah, indeed, God being the master of all, "what the hell do I know?"

[mdmathis6]

I recognize the role Roman Catholicism played in preserving Chritianity and knowledge thru the dark ages of western Europe. Believe it or not, I think many fine departed Catholic souls are with Christ. Many Orthodox, many Southern Baptist, many, many...from all nations and tongues and creeds have become part of Christ's "living temple" that exists trans-temporally, in matter and spirit!

My arguement with the Romanism, is against what it had become by the time of the Reformation...my arguement is against what is now...unresponsive to the laity, with a culture that continues to allow sexual predator priests to pasture them-selves on their sheep.
It is the same arguement I have against the main-line Protestant denominations who have perverted true gospel into an empty form of Godliness, but having no power(as the apostles predicted would happen, in the latter days), and have become a home to every detestable doctrine and un-clean thing...

It's time to return to our First love Jesus Christ, and put off the works of dark-ness...

[RobbyS]

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) Paul made an effort to prove his authority to the other Apostles. Without the support of the rest of the Church his efforts would have been less successful.

[RobbyS]

You say that the medieval Church became unresponsive to the laity. The "laity" of that time included a nobility that hankered to get its hands on the lands of the Church and kings who wished to appoint all bishops so as to make them part of the noble class. Many bishops came from very modest beginnings because the popes were able to keep the Church independent of the state. Did you know that the very first artice of magna carta requires the king to respect the rights of the Church. In comparison with the rest of medieval society, the Church in its head and members was rather egalitarian. Dick Chittington could become Lord Mayor of London; a butcher's son could become archbishop and lord chancellor of England. The Franciscan and the Dominicans and other orders drew recruits from all levels of society. The moral level of the popes was, on balance, rather high.

[RobbyS]

Dick Whittington

[BlackVeil]

That is a good point. The Church was the only institution which offered upward mobility. Several of the medieval Popes came from humble backgrounds.

[Joshua]

"Paul made an effort to prove his authority to the other Apostles. Without the support of the rest of the Church his efforts would have been less successful. "

Gal 1:15-17 15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased

16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man

, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. (NIV)

" Gal 2:1-2 1 Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. (NIV) "

Galatians 2:2 [And I went up by revelation] Not for the purpose of receiving instruction from the apostles there in regard to the nature of the Christian religion. It is to be remembered that the design for which Paul states this is, to show that he had NOT received the gospel from human beings. He is careful, therefore, to state that he went up by the express command of God.
He did NOT go up to receive instructions from the apostles there in regard to his own work, or to be confirmed by them in his apostolic office, but he went to submit an important question pertaining to the church at large.
In , it is said that Paul and Barnahas went up by the appointment of the church at Antioch. But there is no discrepancy between that account and this, for though he was designated by the church there, there is no improbability in supposing that he was directed by a special revelation to comply with their request.
The reason why he says that he went up by direct revelation seems to be to show that he did NOT seek instruction from the apostles; he did not go of his own accord to consult with them as if he were dependent upon them; but even in a case when he went to advise with them he was under the influence of express and direct revelation, proving that he was commissioned by God as much as they were. (from Barnes' Notes)

Galatians 2:2 Paul's second visit to Jerusalem was dictated by revelation, in line with the strong emphasis on the supernatural in the previous chapter. This intimation may have come before the decision of the Antioch church to send Paul, or it may have come afterward and sealed for him the decision of the church (Acts 15:2).
He and Barnabas met with them that were of reputation. Literally, [those who seemed], a rather curious term for the apostles. The same expression occurs twice in and again in <2:9>, where the word "pillars" is added. Perhaps Paul felt that the church was in danger of idolizing these leaders by deferring to them overmuch.

Did Paul really have a fear that he was running (pursuing his course of Christian service) in vain and had run in vain since his conversion, that he had possibly been wrong about the Gospel and now needed to be set right? By no means. But circumstances forced him to submit his message to the apostles, for only in this way could he hope to shut the mouths of his detractors, the Judaizers, and the mouths of those who had been taken in by their propaganda. (from Wycliffe Commentary)

Since you seem to enjoy entering in on other discussions, (which is your right on a free forum like FR), you might find it helpful to have some knoweledge of the subject before commenting on it.

[mdmathis6]

No, I said the Catholic church as it stands now is unresponsive to laity, as are the leaders of the mainline Protestant churches...(who can't understand why their more conservative members are leaving them or forming separate denominations from them).
The formal main-line churches have lost their first love, Jesus Christ and thus have opened them-selves up to un-godly doctrinal positions being led by persons, lewd in their thinking and out-look.("If the eye be darkened, then the whole body is filled with darkness")(The fish, as it rots, first stinks from the head).

The problems in the Catholic church were incremental, occuring over the centuries so that by Luther's time, it was in need of change, and the notion of santification by grace thru Jesus Christ had been lost. It would not. John Hus had attempted to begin reform in the Church but had been killed in Rome by it. Galileo experienced problems with the church because he had not the sense, in keeping quiet about the truth in his observations of the heavens.(which in the final analysis, contradicted minor church doctrine, but not SCRIPTURE). That is my main arguement with the Catholic Church, when its doctrines behave contrarily to the written Word of God, then the doctrines are wrong, not Scripture.
But I dare not say if you are Catholic, you are going to hell...God will detirmine that based on each individuals relationship with his son Jesus Christ, if a person acknowledges Jesus as God in the flesh and has asked him into his heart,then he "is a new creature, all things have passed away, behold all things have become new" I know a multitude of Catholics have made that step and they love their church,staying with it, hoping to see it renewed, respelendent in beauty, flowing with the power of God's grace.

[Aquinasfan]

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.

Acts 1

15   And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (the number of names altogether were about a hundred and twenty) and said, 16   "Men and brethren, it was necessary that this Scripture be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spoke before concerning Judas, who was the guide to those who took Jesus. 17   For he was numbered with us, and had obtained a part of this ministry. 18   Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the middle, and all his bowels gushed out. 19   And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem, insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Akel Dama, that is to say, the Field of Blood. 20   For it is written in the book of Psalms: `Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein'; and, `His bishopric let another take.' 21   Therefore from these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22   beginning from the baptism of John until that same day that He was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection." 23   And they appointed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24   And they prayed and said, "Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show us which of these two Thou hast chosen, 25   that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place." 26   And they cast their lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Peter interprets a psalm to be a prophecy of Judas' betrayal:

For it is written in the book of Psalms: `Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein'; and, `His bishopric let another take.'

The word in question is rendered as either "bishopric" or "office." Either way, the term connotes succession. In this case, an Apostolic successor could be found who would have all of the graces of an original Apostle because:

Therefore from these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22   beginning from the baptism of John until that same day that He was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection."

Obviously these Apostles would have authority over Christ's Church (He only built one) which the gates of hell would not prevail against. Since Scripture tells us that they held an "office" or "bishopric," they would naturally have chosen successors. History tells us that they did since the office of bishop can be traced through history to the earliest days of the Church.

Some of the numerous epistles written by ignatius to numerous churches referencing the term, "bishop":

Chapter 3: For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the [manifested] will of the Father; as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds[of the earth], are so by the will of Jesus Christ.

Chapter 4: Wherefore it is fitting that ye should run together in accordance with the will of your bishop, which thing also ye do. For your justly renowned presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp.

Although bishops are the successors to the Apostles, they do not possess the same powers as the Apostles since modern bishops did not walk with the Apostles "beginning from the baptism of John until that same day that He was taken up from us."

Eventually, bishops acquired authority over specific territories:

This local superior authority, which was of Apostolic origin, was conferred by the Apostles upon a monarchic bishop, such as is understood by the term today. This is proved first by the example of Jerusalem, where James, who was not one of the Twelve Apostles, held the first place, and afterwards by those communities in Asia Minor of which Ignatius speaks, and where, at the beginning of the second century the monarchical episcopate existed, for Ignatius does not write as though the institution were a new one.

St. Irenaeus:

(Adv. Haeres, IV, xxvi, n. 2) "Wherefore we must obey the priests of the Church who have succession from the Apostles, as we have shown, who, together with succession in the episcopate, have received the certain mark of truth according to the will of the Father; all others, however, are to be suspected, who separated themselves from the principal succession."

[Aquinasfan]

But the cult of Peter is based on the prominent role that he plays in the New Testament.

See also Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:19. Cardinal Cajetan cited the keys of the office of vice-regent of the King of David (Isaiah 22) as Scriptural evidence for the papacy in contradicting the Protestant "reformers."

The Pope.

[Aquinasfan]

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.

Pretty much the Catholic position. Baptism is considered as a normative means for salvation and "the door to the Sacraments."

[RobbyS]

Luther had a hard time with Matthew and I don't mean just the part about the Papacy. For those who wish to reduce the Gospel to what Paul had to say, Matthew is a hard nut to crack. Thus Luther's commentaries in Matthew are unsatisfactory to say the least. After all, Matthew says a lot of good things about the Law.

[mdmathis6]

So you explained how 2 centuries after Christianity where the Catholic church derived its official doctrine of Apostolic succession thru Peter, where I am arguing, see Ephsians 2:18-22, that the church is more of a living spiritual force, not a collection of buildings and doctrines as detirmined by one man and diseminated out-ward thru his Cardinals.
The foundation that Peter and the apostles laid was a spiritual one, laying forth the doctrines of love, faith, hope, charity, as embodied in the Son, who acts, even as he sees the Father act. The scriptures further state that the Old testament prophets were apart of this "one foundation" of faith. Christ is the CHIEF CORNER-STONE thru which all the prophets and apostles were joined,spiritually and doctrinally.
You argue that one temporal organization "controls it all", binding or loosing "in heaven or on Earth". I'm saying that Christ's true church is transtemporal, existing from Seth, Enoch, Noah, thru the prophets, Christ, apostles and all Christians who have made a conscious decision to ask Christ into their hearts and to be empowered by the Holy Spirit,(right thru my daughter who was saved at 6 years old, who declared"Jesus came into my I AM place!) Peter and the Apostles, could be said to have "founded" this faith we know as Christianity, thru their preaching and doctrinal work in those first 50 years after Christ, but they would have been astounded to see the form the Catholic Church had taken on by the 15th and 16th centuries...behaving as corruptly as the Jewish temple had been behaving at the time of Christ.
The Reformation was a work of God, not men, God poured out his spirit and institutional old wine sacks burst with the fermentation of the spirit, new churches were born,people were saved, the Grace of God was rediscovered... and yes, wars were fought... Christ said"I come not to bring peace of the Earth, but the sword..." It was interesting that the reformation happened to take place(or God's providence) as the Printing press was invented, and the Protestant ideas could be spread, and scriptures could be translated into the vernacular tongues.
It was said the Reformation, renewed the power of Christianity, after the power of the Catholic church was weakened by the devestating plagues that struck Europe in the 14th thru the 16th centuries(at one point during a 50 year stretch bad out breaks caused 20 million out of an estimated 60 million people to perish in Europe. Rising nation states began challenging the temporal political power of the Roman Church, at one point the church was split between three men vying for the papacy.
Again, this was not the work of men, but the work of God. John Hus had argued for reforms in the church but was lured to Rome under false assurances of saftey,arrested with-out trial and executed. Luther arose, but he had a number of contemporaries as well who supported the restoration of the doctrine of faith thru Jesus Christ as being the only hope of salvtion. Luther, later in his life suffered from what was Alzheimers disease and became quite obsessed with the "problem" of the jews, advocating their destruction. Luckily, other men took up the Protestant cause who did not advocate such noxious notions.
My main point is that the true church, is the whole body of believers, those with us and those now with Christ...those who are Catholic, those who are southern Baptist, those who belong to that small congregation, where loud praise singing and shouts to God could be heard down the street. The true church is comprised of bushmen in Africa who may travel several days to hear the Missionary speak and who ask Jesus into their hearts and to be baptized. The true church is comprised of devout Catholics, who, realizing that there is life beyond the creeds and rituals, step beyond all that by asking Jesus to come directly into their hearts, whose lives become sterling examples of Christ's love and Character.
The true church is where,as Christ stated "two or three are gathered in my name, than I AM there in the midst of them.(Shadrach, Meshac, and Abednigo, were three men in the firey furnace when Christ{"one like unto THE SON OF MAN"} was seen there with them by Nebuchednezzar...the church was there, too!)
The true church is the little child saying her prayers, being surrounded"by a cloud of witnesses" as the zBible states.
The true founder of the church is the "stone uncut by human hands taken out of a mountain" as described in Daniel, that fell from Heaven and smashed the world powers as symbolized by the image of man with a golden head, a chest and arms of silver,belly and thighs of bronze,legs of iron and feet of clay mixed with iron with 10 toes. This stone would then grow into a mountain that filled the whole Earth, symbolizing a Kingdom that God will set up that will consume all nations and will stand for-ever!
It is beyond Catholic, it is beyond Protestant,it is beyond Jew and Gentile,slave or free, kings and commoners. It is comprised of all Believers, in the flesh or in the spirit with Christ, with Jesus being the chief corner-stone...("the stone the builders rejected has become the chief corner-stone")
That is the true chuch, the resplendent Bride of Christ, that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against...lift up your hearts, don't let your hearts be discouraged, his coming is nearer than you first believed, and he is closer to any-one of us than we could ever possibly imagine..."in HIM we live, and move, and have our being!"

[mdmathis6]

There is precious little in scripture written By Peter(other than 1 and 2 Peter) most of it seemed to gravitate between Paul and James, the brother of Christ, in terms of describing the basic tenets of Christianity and its foundational doctrines. The earliest churches were house churches, patterned after synagogues. Later as Christianity grew in power and influence, practical concerns forced more formal styles of worship and operation of the local bodies. These led to the great fights over leadership, apostolic succession, and transfer of authority...as well as establishing of Biblical canon and purity of Christ worship...the seeds of the error of temporal Apostolic succession of Peter to a succession of "lesser" spiritual persons were sewn here. Still, for centuries the Western Roman Catholic church did the job of maintaining the fires of the faith in Europe, thru the dark times, bringing the light of Christ to Ireland and the Norsemen...It was the growing corruption in the church by the 1400's that brought correction by God him-self.

[mdmathis6]

{"one like unto THE SON OF MAN"} Sorry, the phrase should read "Like unto the Son of God"!

[RobbyS]

I was talking about what is written ABOUT Peter. He is easily the most prominent of the Twelve in the Gospels and, of course, in Acts, he is the leading "character" in the first half of the book. Since I first read Acts, by the way, I always wonder why the story ends so abruptly. It leaves one wondering about "the rest of the story."

[mdmathis6]

There was a change in focus..what Jews could be reached had been reached, the rest remained resistent to the Gospel; the physician Luke wrote the book, and he ends up Traveling with Paul(who had been Saul), spreading the light of God's word to the Gentile nations, thus it stops being about the Jewish Apostles in Palestine, and instead it becomes about Paul. Peter himself had had a Dream about being exhorted to eat "unclean" foods 3 times each time being told, "That which is called clean, let no man call unclean!", symbolizing that God was wanting the Jewish Christians to expand their ministries beyond the Jews to include the gentiles as well.(You see the first major controversy was whether or not Gentiles should share in the same faith as the converted Jews) After the dream, of course as you read, a representative came to Peter, from a noted centurian Cornelius, Peter went to his house, witnessed and Cornelius was saved, the Holy Spirt falling on them all...Peter knew then that the gospel was meant for all men, not just the Jews. Paul was the first major missionary to the Gentiles("to the Jew first...then the Greek"), that's why Peter suddenly diminishes in stature. The scriptures later record that that Paul, later returns to Jerusalem to deal with ongoing problems in the relationship between Jews and Gentile believers(the circumcision issue and the reluctance of Jews to associate with gentiles) and Paul "upbrades" the Apostles(Peter, et al), re-minding them not to place the shackles of the law on the Gentiles, when the Jews them-selves couldn't live under the law, that all were to live by faith under God's grace. Paul and Barnabus get into a fuss, and separate(over John Mark who had back-slid for a while and Paul didn't want to take him) going on separate missionary journeys. Paul makes the declaration to the Jews,"Hence-forth, I will go unto the Gentiles!"

[RobbyS]

Of course the second half is about Paul's mission to the Gentiles.I am talking about the way Acts stops before the end of Paul's career. The '60s--they say-- saw the martyrdoms of Peter, Paul and James. Yet nowhere does Scripture mention any of this.

[Jael]

Most people never understand Matthew. They try and build church age doctrine where none exist. There isn't much grace in Matthew. Ever wonder why?