Road to Sainthood Paved with Good Publicity

dats true gul

dats true gul

I am disgusted at this article! You tell God this when you see him next and see what he has to say on the matter! Narrow minded people! It was NEVER Mother Teresa's intention to irradicate poverty - she was merely called to help the poor and the sick get through it! Do Psychologists today - try to eradicate poverty? No! They try and help people live the best lives with what they have got.

To everyone insulting Jacoby - get a grip. She is offering her opinion - she is not proclaiming to know everything about christianity. (I'd guess she does not 'know' that "nuns are christs bride" - what the heck does that even mean????)

What she does 'know', is how to use reason and logic, rather than mysticism and false premises to make a point.

Also, abortion, to most of the WORLD has nothing to do with killing children. It has more to do with preserving the rights of the living, breathing adults who had created a zygote. Equating abortion (a medical procedure) with murder (clearly not medical) is a religious myth intended to galvanize the conservative base. Abortion, gay marriage, and other issues were not much of an issue until politics became so divisive.

Thanks again Susan.

What you really don't understand Susan is Christianity!!! You think all pain should be avoided. A Christian knows God accepts our pain for the reparation of the world's sins!!!And to view abortion as anything but a horror confirms my realization that you are against all the gifts God has given us. Human life is the greatest of all His gifts. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
May God help you!!!

What you really don't understand Susan is Christianity!!! You think all pain should be avoided. A Christian knows God accepts our pain for the reparation of the world's sins!!!And to view abortion as anything but a horror confirms my realization that you are against all the gifts God has given us. Human life is the greatest of all His gifts. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
May God help you!!!

What you really don't understand Susan is Christianity!!! You think all pain should be avoided. A Christian knows God accepts our pain for the reparation of the world's sins!!!And to view abortion as anything but a horror confirms my realization that you are against all the gifts God has given us. Human life is the greatest of all His gifts. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
May God help you!!!

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated,

I do not know how large the number of atheists is, or how well they thrive without a life in the Lord, or whether their outward appearances match the inner reality.

I do know that before I was miserable, and now I am happy. Before, all the anger in my family was in me, and now I am the only one in my family who keeps cool. Before, I used to do all sorts of things I regretted, and didn't even know why, whereas now I have some self-control. Before, my relationships were mostly strained and I had no close friends, whereas now I have brothers that are closer to me than my own siblings.

I was raised in a house that was superficially Catholic - we went to Mass each weekend, and on other obligatory holy days, where none of us paid much attention, and my parents brought us to CCD where I learned very little about much of anything. My parents stopped going, or making us go, by the time I could drive. In college, I started taking an interest in what the whole "Jesus thing" was about. A lot of people got beat over the head with Bibles as a kid, and I can see why they might have problems with what they think is inside it; I didn't. A lot of people had "Jesus" used in their house as a sort of Santa Claus and Boogeyman all rolled into one. I can see why they have issues with who they think Jesus is; I didn't. I'm lucky, because in my house "Jesus" was only a curseword, really.

There are big decisions in life, Concerned, that entail lots of smaller, supporting decisions - you know what I mean? Like the decision to get married entails the smaller decision to tend to one's wife when she is sick, to check with her before making plans, and so on.

The decision to give oneself to Jesus is the same sort of thing. You make the decision all at once, and it can be as simple as "Jesus, if you really exist, if you're out there, would you please help me?" Wherever you're at, whatever you're feeling or thinking, that's where you start with Jesus. Just by being honest - you don't even have to be sure. You can even ask for a sign - but then keep your eyes open, because he will give one, but it won't be in neon, probably (though, who knows?).

After that, the smaller, secondary decisions have to come into play. Over time, to make Jesus the center of my life, I have: stopped doing things that go against what he wants, changed my movie-viewing habits, changed who I hang out with, reduced the amount I drink to a negligible amount, simplified my lifestyle to get rid of distractions, given more of my income to the poor than I thought was possible, changed what I read and why, started getting up an hour and a half earlier so I could spend time at Mass and prayer each morning, even changed career paths because it seemed to be what he wanted.

But it all takes time, and the beautiful thing is that Jesus is patient. He's not going anywhere. He's never asked more of me than the next babystep. But the key is the same for everyone in a relationship with Him: He's God, and knows better, and so we have to let Him lead the way.

If we insist on doing things our way, then it's as if we let him into our life just to make us feel better. Like opium. But he's not opium - he's a real person and wants to have a real relationship with us. And we cannot cling to old, false images of Him that we may have gotten from our family ("Jesus is gonna get you!") as a defense against meeting the real, living Lord - not if we really want to meet him, we can't. How can we get rid of those old images? Ask HIM what He's REALLY like. There's a start, anyway.

If you ever want to email me more privately, my address is withouthavingseen at gmail. Feel free, Concerned. God bless.

Are all Atheist feminists so filled with hate? Just reading this article makes me wonder what happened in this womans past to make her so angry. I would not be surprised to learn that she ws abused.

I am far away from god (he is a man-made myth), and I never had the urge to kill myself, or anybody else. How is this possible?

Ryan,

Giving ourselves to Jesus? How does that work?

And there a large number of atheists that are thriving quite well without the Singlarity or Jeus? Why is that?

David,

Don't despair. Getting away from God is causing us to kill ourselves. But God has come to us - Jesus Christ CAN transform not only each individual and each family, but by transforming us each, he can transform us all - salvage our civilization.

We must each give ourselves to Him so He can do His work on us.

Dear Arminius, Paganplace, LEPIDOPTERYX, Campbellite, David, et al.:

Please drop in on Thomas J. Reese's blog. I would like to continue the discussions we have been having that are spread all over the map.

Moderate,

Very nice post. I felt compelled to let you know that.

I'm not much of an old timer. I'm quite young (depending on how old the rest of you are). I'm 29. But even in my days in school it was just a fist fight or two once in awhile. Just a couple of months ago I went to my son's middle school (6th grade) and the police had a presentation about school violence. He showed youtube videos of kids in my son's school and other schools in the district (6th and 7th graders) with oozies, pistols, car-jacking an old man and then spinning donuts in the car in the middle of an intersection. 6TH AND 7TH GRADERS!! This wasn't even happening in my time as a 6th grader. I still didn't even know how to wipe my butt right, much less know how to shoot a gun, carjack and do donuts!! All this is less than 2 decades. And its only getting worse.

I wonder if Nietzche was right. Was killing God in the 19th century gonna cause humanity to kill itself? Obviously after looking at the 20th century, it's not that good. And looking at today with a secularist society, maybe Nietzche was on to something. That's probably why he was insane the last 13 years of his life. Killing God meant we define ourselves. Kids are defining themselves by the music, videos, and materialism while schools are ranting that God is a bad word. Nietzche being an atheist knew that if the whole of society became atheists and compeletely killed God, then to define ourselves would be the worst thing humanity has seen. All this from an atheist. I'm not saying all atheists are bad people. I'm sure your very nice, but the point is proven with evidence in today's world. Especially the Western world. And now we see the Western World declining and it will continue to decline until we have killed ourselves.

I look forward to it. :(

It is quite clear who the mental, immoral and all other associtated adjectives are on this thread. The 'enlightened ones' who propose a society that will fall sure as Rome.

There is a way that seems right unto man, but the end thereof is death.

Arminius:

“First, I am also using 'Disneylander'.

Next, I take issue with the surveys. Paganplace has some valid points - one, the reporting samples must have been skewed; and two, the fact that 1958 sure as hell was no 'Golden Age'. I know this, for I was there, 15 years old, in the South.“

Thank you.

I didn't mean to suggest that that 1958 was anybody's golden age. It was constricted, prejudiced, and hypocritical. Only a small elite (not including me or mine) lived well.

But ask anyone at Va. Tech if the concern about violence in everyday life is misrepresented in that survey.

While I grew up in a gritty and dangerous industrial city that was an ethnic melting pot, and got into some pretty good fights when I got jumped on the means streets. But there was less cold blooded, killing. Sometimes a good fight would clear the air, in fact.

Also, the teenage pregnancy rate was much lower, the drugs were less powerful, the few guns on the streets were not automatics. I don't think that the inner city was anywhere near as violent as it is today.

When I came up was still possible to find upward mobility through modestly priced public higher education. That was true because there was a sense that a great nation had to educate its people, so even if you grew up poor you could reach higher.

Now higher education is out of sight for most kids whose parent's don't have deep pockets because the Reaganauts pillaged the budgets for it.

The President with his tax cuts for his pals is running up vast debt that will weight heavily on the kids who have diminished educational and economic prospects.

Popular culture sells exploitation of women on a vast scale.

Fiduciary responsibility in corporate officers is a thing of the past with CEO compensation growing beyond reasonable economic bounds or reason. So income becomes more unevenly distributed by the year.

I think that a great nation can and must do better, and that this is a moral issue, and the great religions can be engines of renewal. People need to take a breath and look around to see what needs to be done to maintain a great nation, find like minded neighbors and get to work. Fascists like Sam Harris who degrade the nation further by supporting torture in the name of the United States do not have the answers.

I read recently about a program for prison inmates that taught these men who were going to be released that their children needed them, and they should return and become fathers. The out come was very positive. Many of them did. This means that they could be reached, but no one tired before.

Clearly we can do better.

Clearly we must.

Norrie,

No thanks for the clematis, thank you.

But a good post, well done.

Pax tecum.

Arminius,

You died in 21 A.D. It's time now for you to stop clinging to your earthly home and to move on to the next world. Susan and I have spells to help you accomplish this, if you should wish to have them.

Alternatively, you might try Dr. Bach's flower remedy CLEMATIS. Clematis is for people who live in the past and are too attached to their memories.

Your Latin phrase may be correct, but I wasn't writing Latin, or trying to, I was quoting General Stillwell's famous faux-Latin phrase.

Anyway (or as they say in Yorkshire, "any road"):

Non sum culex.

Vale, lacerte!

Unitam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant! - Actually, it already has.

Regards, Ave atque vale.

Norrie,

The proper Latin is: Noli nothis permittere te terere.

So who is a mental gnat?

Susan,

You wrote a good column.

Don't let the feeble but noisome darts of the moral/mental gnats on this thread trouble you in the slightest.

In particular, heed the advice of the newly-restored Latin Mass:

ILLEGITIMI NON CARBORUNDUM !

All the best to you.

And Kevin you have how many degrees in religious studies???? Or by chance are you one of those like many of us who were bred, born and brainwashed into your religion and were convinced by some "enlighted" nun, priest, rabbi or minister that you were now " a know it all"???

Kevin,

Can't resist.... Oh, sad and benighted person, despising green peppers! Alas! (LOL).

Actually, I feel the same way about Brussel sprouts. So I appreciate your analogy.

I do think you stretched things a bit. I think the vocal atheists who bash us believing folks are as much in the minority as those in the religious crowd who are quick to judge those who do not agree with their dogma.

Perhaps I'm wrong. I hope not.

What I find so wonderful, and most remarkable, about the high-minded, "reasoned" folks from the Atheist left, such as Susan Jacoby, is that they busy themselves, looking out for us "simpletons", to lecture the rest of us about the nonsense of religion when they themselves do not adhere to any faith at all. People who despise faith all of a sudden become "experts" on a topic they could care less about.

I, for example, am disgusted by the taste and smell of green peppers and could care less if they become extinct. Does that now make me an expert on green peppers? Can I now be taken seriously and credibly on all things green pepper? The answer is no, which is why I find it appalling that anyone would care what Ms. Jacoby thinks about religion...and even more appalling that a respected news outlet finds her views informative to the public.

There is a difference between "reason" and just plain being a "know-it-all". Atheists usually see themselves as "smarter" than everyone else because they seem to know something we don't. Ms. Jacoby's constant belittling and disparaging comments towards other people who think differently than her is a reminder of why we should pay so little attention to what the "reasoned" Atheist has to say in the first place.

As a person of faith and reason, since I know so little about green peppers, most notably b/c they take up so little space in my everyday life, one could hardly pin me as an expert. Maybe Ms. Jacoby could write about green peppers and leave religion to those of us who know something about it.

This is an article with one sole (soul-less) objective. The assassination of works of good to appease the authors own inadequate conscience.

Arminius, Speed123, and Brian Fish,
Thank you all for your kind words.

Arminius,
I agree with you about the failure of US diplomatic and military endeavors. A close friend of mine is a major in the US army at the Pentagon. He agrees too.

Speed123,
Thanks for the suggestion. I threw a Charles Taylor onto my Amazon wishlist so I won't forget. I've heard of him, knew he was Catholic, and never really thought to read him. I am a grad student working as a technical writer, taking a bit of time off from (and getting readier and readier by the minute to go back to) school. Might I recommend to you Dietrich von Hildebrand - very clear and systematic, and immensely intelligent. His book, "Transformation in Christ" is a theological treatment of the Christian discipleship that is heavy on philosophy (his formal discipline) but still very accessible. JPII called the text "the Imitation of Christ for the third milennium."

Brian Fish,
Thank you. Maybe I will issue Ms. Jacoby an invitation.

Paul C,

Read my text!!! Suffering, joy, goodness, "badness", etc. comes with being human. It is all about the "luck of the draw". You are complicating the issue with fictional characters like Job and no doubt were bred, born and brainwashed in some form of Christianity.

And some added important words to consider:

Two important observations from "Exclusivism to Convergence: How We Relate to the Religions of Others; Part 1: Diversity, Exclusivism, and Inclusivism" by James Somerville, retired Catholic philosophy professor (Xavier U, Cincinnati, Ohio):

1. "The faith of the vast majority of believers depends upon where they were born and when."

2. "Religion can bring us to the verge, to the brink, but like (the fictional) Moses, who led his people to the (fictional) Promised Land, but could not enter in, there is no place for religion in the world to come. Religion is our vehicle for the journey. Once arrived, it will be left at the door."

David says, “Congratulations [Susan], I think your hatefulness just converted about 100 secularists to Christianity.”

I say – don’t count on it. Disagreeing with a fellow secularist is not cause to start believing that ancient myths are facts to live one’s life by.

Besides, how often is it that annoying remarks by a religious spokesperson turns believers into atheists? If that happened, the percentage of atheists should be skyrocketing!

I wonder how many of Jacoby’s detractors really know much about Mother Teresa besides that she is a humble little Catholic nun who does good works for the poor in India? That’s all I ever knew until recently. Looking back on it, I wonder how we all got to know even that. Certainly she didn't do this single-handedly, did she? Who’s taken over since Mother Teresa died? Surely that "mother" deserves some credit, doesn’t she? There must be many humble little nuns spending their lives among the poor in a truly humble way, with no publicity, no prizes and no prospect of sainthood.

Hi, Moderate!

See my post on the "Christian Nation" of the best-forgotten '50s - I lived thru it too. I don't look back on it with any joy.

I've got two kids, both in college now. I assumed from the start of their educations that the public schools would give no moral training, and tried to do it at home. I am pretty sure I succeeded.

Pay attention to PaganPlace. She can be horribly frustrating at times, but her heart is definitely in the right place. Her different perspective is refreshing.

Dear Paganplace:

"We've always been here, the only difference is that increasingly, kids are offered only lies and despair and marketing.

Or the army."

Agreed. That would be part of the core of the problem. I lived through the "Christian Nation" of 1958, and didn't like it much. Still, the outcome of the changes since then have me wondering if we didn't somehow throw out the baby with the bath water. The bath water was really dirty and needed draining, IMO.

Having put two kids through the public schools recently I was struck that the received almost no moral training in school. The problems of drugs, violence, hyper competitiveness, and just plain cheating, were overwhelming. The stuff that they were given as literature did not teach young citizens about the need for virtue. I think we failed to keep the core literature when we went to make it more inclusive and diverse.

I thought this piece from Kreeft might stimulate some thought.

My son said that it was assumed that "everybody knows" about the classics on how our democracy works, so they skipped the whole thing.

Thanks for the response. More to come.

Testing does not imply a lack of love, nor does it demand premeditation. It simply is putting people in a position to choose. You can choose to do good or evil and you will be held responsible for those choices. This is true whether you believe in God or not. Beyond the common, everyday examples of this, there is also plenty of scriptural support for this, the most obvious perhaps is the story of Job.

I understand your difficulty in accepting that a good and gracious God would allow handicaps. In your perspective, perhaps being different or having less priviledges is a bad thing. I'm sure you think suffering is a bad thing and I'm sure that by definition, most people would agree. Allow for a second that your perspective and God's perspective are very different. Perhaps people are different because God values diversity and that different people are needed to do different things. A blind child may have purpose in life that you just don't understand. Perhaps also God allows suffering because it gives others an opportunity to show love and compassion. As for the individual who suffers, while not pleasant the suffering can at times focus you on what's important in life and certainly gives you an opportunity to demonstrate the strength of your character in ways that getting everything you want will not.

Paul C.,

The "Testing" God??? Give us a break!!!! Consider a child born blind!!! Do you actually believe a good and gracious God would test a child like this???

It is all about natural law and the subsets of stochastic principles. Did God start the "ball of fires"?? Maybe, or maybe it all about evolution and there is no God but stochastically there are other Earths out there in the cosmos???

Some words of wisdom by the famous contemporary theologian, Father Edward Schillebeeckx:

from his book, Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover),

"Christians must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" .

"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices.

Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

To get back to the original letter, may I provide a little insight :

God gave everyone two things: life and free will.

That life he gave is a series of tests to see how we will use that free will. Some are tested with fame and success, some with grinding poverty.

Passing "these tests" is done by loving God and Loving your neighbor as yourself. In Catholic theology, love and charity are often used interchangeably because to love someone is to do things for them without expecting anything in return.

In the end, these tests constitute a journey either to God and heaven or away from God to Hell.

God loves everyone and wants them to choose to be with him in Heaven. But he does not require it (free will). To that end, he applies a "carrot and stick" approach to help lead us to him. The "Carrot" is the feelings of joy and contentment we get when we do his will. The stick is the feelings of guilt from our conscience when we fail.

St. John of the Cross, a 16th century Spanish monk recognized as one of the Doctors of the Church, takes it one step further. He writes that the final test for the most saintly among us is the Dark Night of the Soul. At this point in the progress toward God and Heaven, God essentially removes the "carrot," so that the person no longer gets the feelings of gratification for doing good works. Instead, they need to carry on for the sake of doing good without getting the reward of the good feelings and communication with God that they formerly felt. This tests true love because as formerly described, to love is to do something for someone else without expecting anything in return. As St. John of the Cross wrote, very few people reach this level and it is essentially purgatory on earth, purging the final vestiges of sin from us and makng us perfect.

If you put Mother Teresa's actions and feelings in this context, you get a better idea of why she is being considered for Sainthood. It seems clear from her letters that she was in fact experiencing the Dark Night of the Soul and yet she seems to have passed that test, continuing to selflessly minister to the poorest of the poor simply because she recognized it as God's will for her.

As for the whole question of Sainthood in the Catholic church, Saints are simply people who have reached heaven. The church acknowledges these people because they provide examples of how to do God's will. Studying and understanding their lives and works is invaluable for each one of us to find our own way to heaven. There is not only one way, as demonstrated by the diversity of saintly experience. But in the end, they all did one thing in common: they followed God's will for them.

Moderate,

First, I am also using 'Disneylander'.

Next, I take issue with the surveys. Paganplace has some valid points - one, the reporting samples must have been skewed; and two, the fact that 1958 sure as hell was no 'Golden Age'. I know this, for I was there, 15 years old, in the South.

The school I was in approximates the problems listed, with the addition of pregnancies. Typical white Anglo-Saxon protestant. But there were many other schools that fit the problem list of 1988; they were, at the time, all inner-city schools. Substitute STD for AIDS, and you've got it. In 1958, drugs were concentrated in the big cities, and tightly controlled by organized crime. Drugs did not migrate to the suburbs and rural areas until the 1960's, where they became local industries. Guns the same way, at least the use of guns for violence. But our school was run in accordance with Southern conservative protestant Christianity, with prayers all the time. Most of us just endured it, complaining would got us expelled. And we had the hell of segregation to deal with. Not a pleasant time, unless you were white, middle class, and Christian. And could ignore the religious atmosphere and segregation.

Dear Victoria:

"moderate- excellent observations- if you have no objection, may i use your phrase fat disney landers in the future?"

Feel free, and thanks for the complement. "Fat, Dumb, and Happy Disney landers." was actually my turn of phrase.

All the best.

Anon,

The Pope is always against war. We would all be "goose stepping" now if we followed this "fallible fellow". Fortunately, most Catholics to include myself are not sheep.

Paganplace:

"Not that unlike 1988... All the kids knew we had a senile right-wing president all ready to get us all nuked for Jesus..."

O rly??

It just so happens that all of the top neo conservatives were liberal Jewish intellectuals: Kristol, Podhoretz, and Strauss

Not to mention the ones that carried out the Project for the New American Century: Kristol Jr., Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Abrhams etc.

PS - not all Christans are the same. Catholics were against the war from the start while the Evangelicals and other OTers were fully behind it

I mean... Terrorism? They were trying to sell us on *that* back then, all the while we were *sure* Reagan was gonna say something stupid while forgetting what country he was in and we'd *all* incinerate.

Sometimes I question if people older than myself can even *deal* with a world not-about-to-end-any-minute-now-for-no-good-reason.

Seems certain people sold us on voting for that. Maybe it's out of nostalgia, I dunno.

But if you're wondering about the kids today, maybe take a lesson from the kids of *then.*

a) Stop lying.

And

b) Offer a real future.

This ain't rocket science.

I know some got a problem with science these days.

If it isn't a rocket, that is.

I mean, hey, it's going on 2008...

Not that unlike 1988... All the kids knew we had a senile right-wing president all ready to get us all nuked for Jesus...

What's different now?

The rich kids and wannabe rich kids don't have an ever-expanding economy to expect to profit on by.

So it turns inside.

Oh, and there's no good reason to expect we might get nuked any given minute, so Apocalypse was substituted.

Kids are less jaded and cowed than we. If less cautious.

But they see.

Our government lies and denies and profits and calls it holy.

What do you expect, 'Moderate?'

*spritzing hair.* Remember?

Apart from reporting samples, The Moderate:

In 1958, abortion, (and all unwanted pregnancy) venereal disease, rape, and drugs were simply *not spoken about* ...and violence was a spectre of 'negro' schools.

How did we come to this?

We've always been here, the only difference is that increasingly, kids are offered only lies and despair and marketing.

Or the army.

Not actually so different.

Only difference now is, we have no excuse to not do better... Not through trying to impose more ignorance, but through actually *educating kids as we now can,* and also... Through living up to America's promises... That things improve, that life can become better, not worse...

And that this doesn't just mean more consumer crap to sell each other.

Cause that particular well ran dry.

But life *ain't that bad* if only we could live here.

The last Christian Right administration, when *I* was a high school kid, we could let off steam. Cause we had legal rights and we could get away with things, and guns only came in later...

Now everything's like lockdown and the lies are even more insistent, even more transparnt, the kids live under lockdown, and the adults.. (that's us, now, are willfully even stupider, and the economic expansion of the 80s isn't even going to happen.

No wonder kids are blowing corks.

What's happened since 1958?

Much better things than you'd think.

It's the romanticized *idea* of 1958 that's screwing us, now.

Even if you liked the segregated water fountains.

Dear Anti-Theists:

I was just reading Peter Kreeft's book “Making Choices”. It seemed that a funny thing happened at the point where we became a "post Christian" nation. He pointed out that a survey of high school principals in 1958 identified the main problems among their students to be:

1. not doing homework
2. not respecting property - e.g., throwing books
3. leaving lights on and doors and windows open
4. throwing spit balls in class
5. running through the halls

The same survey thirty years later identified a new top five:

1. abortion
2. AIDS
3. rape
4. drugs
5. fear of violent death, murder, guns and knives in school

Anyone think that this is progress?

How did we come from the one to the next?

What do you all think?

I am going to drop on over to Father Reese's topic for a while. If you want to talk about, it drop on over to chew on it.

Dear Ryan,

I wish you well in your volunteer work there.
You should make a good-will invitiation to Ms. Jacoby -- that is, a chance to see Mother Teresa's ongoing work right in our own backyard.

Best,
Brian

Hello Ryan,

I enjoyed your last posts and you sound like a Catholic intellectual so I will suggest the political philosopher Charles Taylor (any of his works - a new one is coming out in Sept.)

He deals with faith in modernity along with the major thinkers of our time and their influence on our development as a civilization.

He also just won the Templeton Prize and would blow Hitch out of the water in any debate.

Check Charles Taylor; mind blowing, yet accessible scholarship!

Ryan Haber:

First, thank you for your kind words.

I am a believer - practicing Episcopal, on the liberal side. I don't know about humble, but I try.

Man, your stuff about poverty was a powerful education that blew me away. I should see that somehow - but videos ain't gonna do it. I feel from your words that it must be viewed first hand. How blind and spoiled we Americans are. I have seen slums here, but that is not the same. Although it's bad enough.

It's not just our foreign aid that fails because of our ignorance of the situation in a given country, but also our diplomacy and our military efforts.

Meaningful discussions can happen here. Let's keep it up.

Arminius
(Nom de Guerre)

Danny B.,

Thanks for your insight. Talking to immigrants in our own neighborhood can teach us how much we don't know.

---

Brian Fish,

It's funny you say that. It's been growing on my mind for a while - some friends have even suggested it to me, independently of each other - to go help out the MC's at their hospice on Otis St NE. I used to help there weekly until life circumstances changed. Maybe it's time to give them a call.

Wow. I write some really, really long posts. I think it's because I'm used to jobs with a lot of interaction, and now am mostly in an office by myself. Lol.

Arminius,

That's cool.

It's funny, because I don't think I had read your post (maybe I had read part of it), and I am sure that I had not read Moderate's, in which he used the term Disneylander. It will enter my lexicon, as well as Victoria's - it expresses the point better than my previous "fat-and-happy".

At 20, I went with my university's "Project Mexico" program to Tijuana for 2 weeks on a service mission. We helped local neighborhood groups build their own schools and parish buildings. It was really eye opening to walk among those shantytowns made out of cardboard, corrugated tin, and old tires. It was like one of those physics challenges where you have to build a parachute for an egg, using only plastic straws, only this was life for these people.

It blew away a LOT of preconceptions. It's funny, because I went to a middle-of-the-road Jesuit university, and took some classes on economics, went to plenty of lectures and workshops on causes of poverty, etc. I am not sure if everything they said was true or false, but I know that when I got to Tijuana's shanty-suburbs, they just kinda fell away in front of the reality.

Just recently I went to Mexico on vacation with a friend of mine, a priest who is my age (we are both 30 or so). We started off a few hours south of Cancun, Mexico's Disneyworld-for-Americans, on a quiet relaxing beach. We traveled into Chiapas, where there is probably the worst poverty on the North American continent. I've been there before, but for my friend it was surreal. For me it was too, I guess.

My friend's dad is a farmer in South Dakota. Couple thousand acres of flat land, growing corn, wheat, soya, he's got. In a good year, he gets good rain (and other parts of the country don't) so prices are high, he has lots of produce, and gets it all to market with the right timing. In a good year, he makes enough to pay his bills, pay off the seed he bought, save a bit of money for a rainy day, and help his kids with college, etc.

In Chiapas, my friend was blown away to see a little indigenous man and a little indigenous woman and their little indigenous son positively HIKING up a 60* (that is not exaggerated... if anything, it is understated) to irrigate BY HAND with buckets corn growing on that slope. Their little plots - just a couple of acres - are supposed to yield them enough to live on, and to bring a bit to market so they can get some money and buy something luxurious, like a pair of shoes or a shirt. In a good year, it does.

---

Another example of unexpected reality comes from a priest, formerly at my parish, and now serving as pastor of a parish in Togo. At a village in his parish there sits a number of cool, once-new-and-now-dated gadgets to make daily life better for villages that are very simple, poor, and relatively untouched by modernity. They were brought by Japanese corporate benefactors: solar powered hot-water heaters, solar powered stadium-style lights to make roads safer at night, and a drinking well with pump powered by nice, big batteries. It's tropical Africa, and always hot, so nobody has every dreamt of hot-water heaters (since you only need to heat water a bit, to boil it for cooking). They quickly decided that hot showers were not pleasant. Since it is an agrarian area and people get up before dawn, they were not happy to have lights go on at dark and stay on, for hours. Within a couple weeks, villagers had put out the bulbs with stones. As for the well-and-pump, the batteries died after a year or so, and the pump only got in the way of drawing water by hand, as they had done since time immemorial quite happily. They ripped the pump out and broke it down for parts to sell.

---

In my thinking, the chief reason that our foreign aid programs usually don't amount to much is that we don't understand the realities we are dealing with. So we increase funding for projects that become like black holes until we grow disenchanted and give up.

---

It's OK not to know about those realities. The ones we have to deal with on a daily basis are complex enough for us. I am not sure (can't remember earlier posts) if you are a believing person, Arminius, but I can tell you are a humble one, anyway.

What really startles me about Jacoby's writing, and about the ideas expressed by Prof. Dennett and Prof. Hitchens is their arrogance, really. About almost any other topic, I am sure they would admit ignorance when ignorant. Here I am afraid that their animosity against religion and the religious has really gotten the better of them. It has also unmasked an pretty startling amount of self-conceit as well, as they sit in judgment over Mother Teresa's presumedly judgmental beliefs; as they lecture about how she would lecture her workers and guests and patients; as they pontificate about the pontiff with whom she collaborated; as they imagine they have fathomed her faith. All of this, while they give no indication of any familiarity with the concrete facts of the day-to-day reality (both exterior and interior) with which she (and other "relief workers") have to deal. It's really stunning, actually.

---

It is really encouraging that meaningful discussion can occur on these boards though.

Thank you, Arminius.

No, seriously, what do you really think of Mother Teresa? I truly think Mother Teresa enjoyed pain.

Ryan Haber:

I came onto this discussion, apparently, as a 'fat Disneylander'. Between you and Moderate, I am beginning to see the grim truth. Thanks.

If you want to understand Mother Teresa, go volunteer with some her of her sisters here in Washington, D.C. There are at least two communities that I know of. One is in Mount Pleasant. When asked by an atheist how he could come to believe in God, the poet Gerard Manley Hopkins replied, "Serve the poor."

My hunch is Teresa, like other saints, realized God had not abondoned her but that He WAS the people she helped. "Whatever you did for the least of my brothers, you did for me."

To paraphrase Dorothy Day, that means that the least of us are not symbols of Christ, or make us think of Christ. It means they are Christ!

See you on the bread lines?

Ryan Haber,

Very well said. I had similar thoughs on the matter and was unable to articulate them as well as you did.

I am from Detroit and lived in Florida for four years (then came back after the '04 hurricanes).

I had many neighbors from Latin America and the things that would amaze them about being here were equally amazing to me because I take them for granted.

The nearly guaranteed treatment in an emergency room was one of them. For some it was not just that you can go to a SUPERmarket, but that there is the availablity of all those products at all.

A Cuban friend commented to me that when he arrived here and went to the supermarket for the first time, "I could not believe you could actually buy all those things." He had been accustomed to stores with empty shelves, or stores where only tourists were able or ALLOWED to buy things.

A friend from Peru had never heard of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches...honestly! He thought the idea was disgusting and said they had peanut butter there (occasionally for toast), but that it was like us with a bottle of Tabasco...everybody has it and the bottle is always full.

I even heard heard people from England marvel at the "giant" containers of milk and orange juice we buy. An older British man commented to me when I asked what he thought of his first trip to the U.S., "It's amazing! The urinals flush themselves, and the tap is automatic!"

I didn't even leave the country to learn just how impossible it would be for me to begin to comprehend just what Mother Teresa did, and under what circumstances.

You said:

"It is easy to sit in a nice armchair at a desktop and speculate about what Mother should have or could have done."

I couldn't agree more.

Maureen Seymour,

Do you really think that guilt-feelings could power and direct the sort of operation that Mother Teresa developed? Maybe as a child or teenager you went to the Catholic religion out of guilt-feelings, but I can assure you that my faith has a firmer foundation.

To those criticising how Mother Teresa ran the Missionaries of Charity, esp. vis-a-vis painkillers and adequate medical care, etc.:

If you have never been to a poor, developing country like India, it is really, really hard to imagine the depths of poverty present there. It's not like poverty in an American inner-city for a couple reasons. A kid dying from a treatable kidney condition (usually) by law gets life-saving treatment in hospitals, at the hospital's own expense, in Western nations. Not so in many places. That kid with the kidney ailment might literally have been picked out of the gutter in front of the hospital. Keeping too many supplies on hand can be a dangerous invitation to burglary and even open invasion by gangs. When even cooking gas is almost completely beyond reach, even sterilized water must be rationed cautiously. It's a simple fact. Some of the people who worked with Mother Teresa and left probably did so out of revulsion at life's harsh realities, and confused them with some sort of preference of Mother Teresa's.

When I visited Cambodia for two weeks to work in medical clinics with missionary friends of mine, it was amazing what I saw. There were (in 2001) no hospitals comparable to Western standards operated by the government even in the capital city. There was a hospital operated by the Russian government, and one operated by the Japanese government. The Japanese was pretty spiffy and modern; the Russian was abysmal. Patients there simple sat on the floor and rotted, waiting to die, without even adequate or appropriate food.

In such a situation, if a nun comes and takes a patient out and brings the patient to a center where there is at least a bed and better nutrition, everything else lacking, has the nun harmed the patient by not also giving antibiotics? Hardly.

It is easy to sit in a nice armchair at a desktop and speculate about what Mother should have or could have done. It is gratifying to sit in judgment over someone admired the world over. But both attitudes are tinged with hypocrisy and naivite. Mother Teresa was from a (more-or-less) developed country, was educated, and knew what options were available in the West. Antibiotics may have helped any number of her patients. I'm guessing she thought of that.

Here in my East Coast office, it is really, really hard for me to remember what destitution without government-welfare actually looks like.

moderate- excellent observations- if you have no objection, may i use your phrase fat disney landers in the future?

Tom wrote:

"... I do not know your gods, but I hope you are at least open to the possibility of the existence of mine. ... "

Tom,

I will admit that there is a remote possibility that gods exist (including yours) if you will admit that there is also a high probablity that your god does not exist because there is no credible evidence that any gods exist outside the imaginations of men.

Pray quietly if you must but remember, you don't get a refund if you over-pray.

I am struck by the number of people who seem to beieve that faith or religion is about having a warm, squishy feeling in your tummy. Faith is so much more than emotion.

MT, in private letters to friends and advisors, admitted to having no warm squishy feeling. When you realize that faith is as much about action and will as it is about feelings, then you will see how her "darkness" reveals a stronger faith than any of us on the outside ever expected. She kept the will and performed the action with no warm squishy reward at the end of the day. FAITH is what propelled her.

It's the same motivation as the parent who gets up early every morning to go to the first job before college classes and the second job, and then comes home to take care of the children, do the chores, then get a few hours of sleep before doing it all over again. The parent, on the rare opportunity to hang out and have a beer with friends, will admit to being tired, say this is bu**^&$%, rage against "the man" etc. This parent is exhausted, frustrated, angry, but keeps at it day after day, even year after year, with the faith that the hard work and education will pay off in the future, with a better opportunity for meaningful work that pays better. There's no guarantee, no promise of a reward at the end of the year, just the faith that it will all work out in the end. You do what you have to do, because it's the right thing to do, and that is that.

Ms. Jacoby I was a taken aback by the title of your article (it sounded a little vicious for no reason) but decided to read it anyway. I expected a more even-handed and intellectual discussion, which posited well-formed ideas that would leave me with something to ponder. What I found is that my first impression was right--your article is nothing more than a series of sensational, catty remarks about Mother Teresa. I'm not Catholic or religious or anything else that can be labeled, but you writing as a representative of secular thinkers is not helping anyone's cause.

Ms. Jacoby I was a taken aback by the title of your article (it sounded a little vicious for no reason)but decided to read it anyway. I expected a more even-handed and intellectual discussion, which posited well-formed ideas that would leave me with something to ponder. What I found is that my first impression was right--your article is nothing more than a series of sensational, catty remarks about Mother Teresa. I'm not Catholic or religious or anything else that can be labeled, but you writing as a representative of secular thinkers is not helping anyone's cause.

Moderate,

I can't fault your reasoning about Mom T not stocking painkillers because of the danger of robbery or worse. I guess reality is usually more complex and nasty than we like to believe.

Of course Mother Teresa was a phony. All religious people are phonies

Very insightful article. Having been raised catholic, I had an opportunity to attend a Jesuit University. The Jesuits are liberal thinkers and have a "reality take" on this religion thing. Full of myth and allegory, catholicism had held onto true belivers with plan and simple guilt. Perhaps mother Teresa was simply feeling guilty.
And you are correct; kissing babies in India does nothing to relieve the grinding poverty.

Dear Speed123,

In regards to Mikey, I could have not have said it better.

Thank you.

The Moderate

Sounds "RELIGULOUS" To me!

Wow Momma Monsa! or should I say Kosher or Halall Kid? Ya.

Dear Armenius,

“I would say that, yes, the poor guy was better off than in the gutter. But I believe the point here is that the truly compassionate thing to do was ease that man's passage with good pain killers. Have you ever seen a person dying in extreme pain? I have. My father. I would not even wish that on Bin Laden. So if that story is true, then Mom T dropped the ball. Bigtime.”

It is a natural feeling you have, and I am sorry for your loss. Unfortunately, it is not that simple in Calcutta. We who live here in Disney Land (I am as guilty of it as you are) see things through the lens our own experience. If Mother Teresa had loaded her hospice up with modern pain killers, she would have had to deal with the people killers out on the street who would have come in to steal the stuff.

Let me tell you a little story, my friend. I donate supplies and money to an inner city Christian charity that provides after school care, including meals, a safe haven, study materials, and the like. In this neighborhood the local parents are often casualties of drugs and crime, and most marriages are broken. In many cases they either can't or won't feed the children, so the kids would go to bed hungry but for this meal. They might never learn to read and write, but for the study help the get at the school, either.

Then, one day, the school asked for entertainment supplies like game consoles and games, and screens to run them on so it would not be all work an no play for the kids. Since we live in the Disney Land suburbs we thought “How sad that no one will give these kids a few simple pleasures. We can fix that. We can simply donate necessary materials for entertainment, and then the kids will have fun, and education too.” Well, the school was burglarized and the nice things stolen. Heartbreaking, really, and a hard lesson that things are not so simple as we who live in Disney Land take for granted.

The point is that Mother Teresa chose to live and work an a place almost infinitely harsher than the American inner city. If she had any of the kind of drugs and equipment that we take for granted it would have been stolen, and her fellow sisters would have been at grave risk during the thefts.

Susan Jacoby, and Christopher Hitchins are fat, dumb, and happy, Disney Land dwellers who can't see past their own noses.

Mother Teresa is a saint who chose to dwell in a hell on Earth and do what she could for the dying.

Holding her to standards of middle class American Hospices is stupid beyond belief.

Dear Armenius,

“I would say that, yes, the poor guy was better off than in the gutter. But I believe the point here is that the truly compassionate thing to do was ease that man's passage with good pain killers. Have you ever seen a person dying in extreme pain? I have. My father. I would not even wish that on Bin Laden. So if that story is true, then Mom T dropped the ball. Bigtime.”

It is a natural feeling you have, and I am sorry for your loss. Unfortunately, it is not that simple in Calcutta. We who live here in Disney Land (I am as guilty of it as you are) see things through the lens our own experience. If Mother Teresa had loaded her hospice up with modern pain killers, she would have had to deal with the people killers out on the street who would have come in to steal the stuff.

Let me tell you a little story, my friend. I donate supplies and money to an inner city Christian charity that provides after school care, including meals, a safe haven, study materials, and the like. In this neighborhood the local parents are often casualties of drugs and crime, and most marriages are broken. In many cases they either can't or won't feed the children, so the kids would go to bed hungry but for this meal. They might never learn to read and write, but for the study help the get at the school, either.

Then, one day, the school asked for entertainment supplies like game consoles and games, and screens to run them on so it would not be all work an no play for the kids. Since we live in the Disney Land suburbs we thought “How sad that no one will give these kids a few simple pleasures. We can fix that. We can simply donate necessary materials for entertainment, and then the kids will have fun, and education too.” Well, the school was burglarized and the nice things stolen. Heartbreaking, really, and a hard lesson that things are not so simple as we who live in Disney Land take for granted.

The point is that Mother Teresa chose to live and work an a place almost infinitely harsher than the American inner city. If she had any of the kind of drugs and equipment that we take for granted it would have been stolen, and her fellow sisters would have been at grave risk during the thefts.

Susan Jacoby, and Christopher Hitchins are fat, dumb, and happy, Disney Land dwellers who can't see past their own noses.

Mother Teresa is a saint who chose to dwell in a hell on Earth and do what she could for the dying.

Holding her to standards of middle class American Hospices is stupid beyond belief.

SO RIGHT!

i dont know if little richard was into mormonism- he did love to scat illiteratives though...

in one of the posts, reference is made to Moroni, who apparently was someone important to the Mormons. i'm doing a paper on the history of rock n roll. can anyone tell me: was Moroni the inspiration for that great song, Bony Maroni?

Instead of accepting the reality of history and demanding a deletion of Big Mo and his scribes' koranic militaristic agenda , The Jihadist continues her almost 24/7 "wishy wash" with verbage about other religions, other life styles and other economic and government institutions while Islam continues to bring us closer to a world war.

It is important that we continue to remind The Jihadist of the seriousness of the situation. This will continue until we see an acceptance of historic reality and a condemnation of the actions of Iran and the "Wannabees".

Oh my. I had thought it would be at most, 250 posts by now, in reaction to Ms. Susan Jacoby's simmering and boileth over essay on Mother Teresa, but already 357 posts at least.

If St. Joan (of Arc) were to read this thread, I wonder what she would have called us. She apparently call the English who waged war with France in her time, "Les Goddams", as they swear too much.

Mother Teresa is, perhaps, a maverick, an eccentric, an activist, a humanist, a humanitarian, a hustler, an "establishment/organisation" rebel (stike that, she did toe the company line on abortion out of either loyalty or principles or both), who is not afraid to get down and dirty in the slums of Calcutta and beyond to achieve her objectives whatever her motives were. She knows what she wants, what to do, and she did it. And so human, warts and all, doubts and all. She seems like a secular humanist in excelsis apart from that little bit of believing in a "supernatural" entity.

A Hermit

Thanks for that clarification on what Christopher Hitchens wrote and what he meant. I was so dazzled by his way with words that that it took me a while to figure out he doth coat half past six notions with lots of sugar and spice that pleased the palates temporarily but does nothing to mind and soul and leaves a sour aftertaste too.

Yoyo

I was laughing at how we believers now hold up doubt as a virtue when it is just normal it is for humans as love, hate, anger, fear etc.

Saying "Doubt is not the opposite of faith. Doubt is an element of faith" is stating the obvious, a wee defensive and most unnecessary. Anyone who says s/he has no doubts at all in his/her entire life on aspects of his/her faith, beliefs and/or values is to be held suspect. S/he's either lying, in denial and not thinking at all.

The most effective and innovative religious leaders and thinkers are the ones with the most doubts on the status quo and their own faith. You, my friend, would know which ones of course.

Hope you gentlemen have a very enjoyable long weekend.

Best regards as ever
J

as for contraceptives, the debate is wide open as to the most effective method...

A recent study listed on Yahoonews showed that the use of condoms failed to significantly reduce the spread of hvi in subsaharan africa...why?....because men in certain societies (even ours) refuse to use them even with education and warnings on disease.

The message of contraception promotes sexual freedom or "liberation" and then fails to protect at that critical moment as they are alien to many male dominated cultures.

Your, and Jacoby's, enthocentrism and monolithic solutions to diverse peoples is ineffective and ignorant.

Mikey,

Jacoby's "evidence" is based on the slander and misrepresentations of C. Hitchens.....the very same Hitchens who, like his neo con ilk, advocated for the slaughter and starvation of thousands in Iraq in the name of progress.

Go figure that they try to "bring down" a woman who spent her life in poverty dedicated to feeding and clothing the poor of Calcutta.

These hateful war mongers should be the last to throw any stones...

Moderate, your post does little to address Susan's actual points. Your comments that you addressed them are disingenuous.

"Mother Teresa" did little to alleviate suffering and a good deal to contribute to it, considering her position on abortion and contraceptives. If you wish to address to address how her stance on contraceptives did not contribute to spread of sexually transmitted diseases, please contribute.

If not, your post is little more than the ad hominems you seem to complain that Susan made. Except, of course, that she had actual points.

Moderate stated "Dear Mike K.:

"It's rather telling that of all the criticism directed towards Ms. Jacoby, nary a person addresses her actual comments."

Telling what? I just did."

Telling that most people are just as hateful as they accuse Ms. Jacoby of being and, unlike her, don't use actual arguements to back up their position.

As you posted your comments hours after mine, I hardly see how my comments could possibly apply to your recent post. Sent me your crystal ball and I'll use it next time.

Susan Jacoby,

That is the most hateful rant I've heard in quite awhile here on OnFaith. Did you forget your Paxil this morning?

Congratulations, I think your hatefullness just converted about 100 secularists to Christianity.

Of course I appreciate your honesty, especially that your honestly hateful. If this is secularism, then why the heck would anyone want to join that?

Moderate, you said:

"Where was this man before he was in Mother Teresa's hospice? In the gutter with no one to help, I will guess. So Mother Teresa doesn't measure up to your standards, bunky? What have you done for the dying in the streets of Calcutta? Nothing, I will guess. Tell me I am wrong; if I am."

I would say that, yes, the poor guy was better off than in the gutter. But I believe the point here is that the truly compassionate thing to do was ease that man's passage with good pain killers. Have you ever seen a person dying in extreme pain? I have. My father. I would not even wish that on Bin Laden. So if that story is true, then Mom T dropped the ball. Bigtime.

Anonymous,

"Perhaps a poignant summary of Mother Teresa's mission can be seen in a story recounted by herself. A dying man was in terrible pain. She told him "You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you." To which the man replied: "Then please tell Jesus to stop kissing me."

Where was this man before he was in Mother Teresa's hospice? In the gutter with no one to help, I will guess. So Mother Teresa doesn't measure up to your standards, bunky? What have you done for the dying in the streets of Calcutta? Nothing, I will guess. Tell me I am wrong; if I am.

Hitchens is a fast buck artist who has never been much concerend with the truth.

Anon wrote:
"I'm curious where it says in the Bible that lepers were outcasted."

"As for the leper who has the infection, his clothes shall be torn, and the hair on his head shall be uncovered and he shall cover his moustache and cry "Unclean. Unclean".

"He shall remain unclean all the days during which he has the infection: he is unclean. He shall live alone. His dwelling shall be outside the camp".

Leviticus 13:44-45

I'm surprised you couldn't find this reference. I'm not even a Christian and I found it in about 3 minutes using a search engine.

I'm not sure if god said that's how they should be treated, but the important point is that is exactly how they were treated for centuries. In addition, leprosy was often seen as a result of moral failing, frequently of a sexual nature, and it's victims, therefore, less deserving of aid and comfort.

I see also that you completely missed the point about not defining people by their diseases with your use of the word "lepers". Do you refer to people with cancer as "cancerites", or people with arthritis as "arthitics"?

I apologize to the heathens for implying they're necessarily godless.

Just because she did not practice the drug addicted method of medicine seen in the states does not mean that people for maltreated.

Hitchens, that drunk egoist, criticizes mother Teresa on one hand while actively lobbying for the war and sanctions in Iraq that have killed over a million.

Nothing about this pompous, hate-filled man is more telling. (ps - the mass murderer Trotsky is his hero)

Susan Jacoby, it is clear that you have absolutely no understanding of what drives a Christian individual. Your comments are ridiculous. Who publishes garbage like your "writing"? Theresa sought to unite herself with the suffering of Christ not to out do him. She sought for unity with her creator not selfishness. You Susan are incredibly selfish. You are willing to tear down the greatest woman of the century for you own personal gains. It makes sense though no matter how incredible a famous person is there's always one nut job looking to assassinate that person's character. If you are interested in any sort of theological discussion I'm up for the task, but I don't think you are capable of discussing theology no matter how much you think you may know about it. I find your ranting to be ignorant and naive. For as much as you fancy yourself a learned, and exceptionally intelligent woman. I and most likely the majority of your species. Find you to be a loud mouthed buffoon. Stop it. I view you as a puppy who peed on the carpet, and I hope your noes gets rubbed in it good.

PS. Read the hagiography of Christina the Astonishing I'm sure you'll love that one.

Anonymous, you said:

Mother Teresa’s work among the poor in Calcutta attracted the world wide attention culminating with a Nobel Peace Price in 1979. Yet her work has been criticized as not one based on the alleviation of suffering but on the morbid theological celebration of pain and suffering.

Your details got my attention. There would seem to be something wrong with all this. What I believe to be compassion did not seem to be present.

Mother Teresa’s work among the poor in Calcutta attracted the world wide attention culminating with a Nobel Peace Price in 1979. Yet her work has been criticized as not one based on the alleviation of suffering but on the morbid theological celebration of pain and suffering. Christopher Hitchens outlined these rather disturbing facts in his book The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice (1995):

- Dr. Robin Fox, editor of the medical journal The Lancet, visited Mother Teresa's operation in Calcutta in 1994. He reported that he was very "disturbed" by what he saw. There was little anesthesia to be seen and a near total neglect of medically sound diagnosis. Why were not the sisters given proper training in simple diagnosis as well as in managing pain? Because according to Dr. Fox, Mother Teresa "preferred providence to planning; her rules are designed to prevent any drift towards materialism."

- Mary Loudon, a volunteer in Calcutta, had even worse things to say about Mother Teresa's operation. She reported seeing in the Home for the Dying more than a hundred men and women all dying and not been given much medical care. Pain killers used do not go beyond aspirins. The nuns were rinsing the needles used for drips with plain tap water. When Loudon asked them why they were not sterilizing the needles, the reply was simply they had no time and that there was "no point". She also recounted the case of a fifteen year old boy who was dying because of a treatable kidney complaint. All that was needed was a cab fare to take the boy to a proper hospital. But Mother Teresa's peons refused to do so, for "if they do it for one, they had to do it for everybody."

- Susan Sheilds, who worked for almost ten years as a member of Mother Teresa's order, subsequently left the movement because of the atrocious negligence she witnessed there. The order's obsession with poverty means that the nuns and volunteers work under conditions of austerity, rigidity and harshness. Due to Mother Teresa's fame, Ms. Sheilds reported that the charity had around US$50 million in their bank account in the US. The donations kept pouring in, yet little of these were used to procure medicine or to provide better health care for the suffering. The nuns were rarely allowed to spend money on the poor they are trying to help.

- To Mother Teresa, like all other missionaries, spiritual well being over-rides everything else. As Ms. Sheilds reported, "Mother Teresa taught her nuns how to secretly baptize those who were dying. Sisters were to ask each person in danger of death if he wanted a 'ticket to heaven'. An affirmative reply was to mean consent to baptism. The sister was then to pretend she was just cooling the person's forehead with a wet cloth, while in fact she was baptizing him, saying quietly the necessary words. Secrecy was important so that it would not come to be known that Mother Teresa's sisters were baptizing Hindus and Muslims."

Perhaps a poignant summary of Mother Teresa's mission can be seen in a story recounted by herself. A dying man was in terrible pain. She told him "You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you." To which the man replied: "Then please tell Jesus to stop kissing me."

Why would anyone be surprised that the socialist, jewish owned Washington post would print this trash?

This is the same paper that promoted the Iraq war as a humanitarian act.

This is a paper that praises/promotes the theories of preemptive war and empire yet slanders the piety of a Catholic leader working with in reality of poverty.

I am not surprised.

Mother Theresa proves that faith trumps science and that Christ trumps everything. The power of her life and testimony now unveiled for all the world puts the lie to all who reject Christ. Suffering is no argument against a good God but rather THE argument for a suffering God on a cross. Theresa lived the life she worshipped. All humanity is honored and ennobled as a result. And I am no Catholic

Dear Mike K.:

"It's rather telling that of all the criticism directed towards Ms. Jacoby, nary a person addresses her actual comments."

Telling what? I just did.

Susan,

Picking on an old lady who is dead and can't defend herself, eh? That's about your speed, all right.

“So we come to the Mother Teresa who accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979--after having done nothing at all to further the cause of peace.”

Wow, Mother Teresa got your Nobel Peace Prize, eh? Terrible that they were so sloppy as choose her instead, wasn't it?

“These creepy letters, notable for their joylessness as well as their narcissism, are entirely consistent with Teresa's works,...”

Creepy essays notable for their joylessness as well as their narcissism are entirely consistent with Susan Jacoby's works, not with Mother Teresa's.

“...which amounted to putting band-aids on sores rather than attempting to fight poverty itself. It is obviously a good thing to but band-aids on sores, but doing the job does not make you a saint or even a particularly fine human being.”

A regular sadist, this Mother Teresa woman was, caring for the sick and the poor. Terrible that she could not abolish poverty at a wish. Terrible. Terrible. Terrible. Why, she should have built a hospital like Mass General and got the staff for it too. Terrible she was, just terrible.

“Teresa never showed any concern, in India or elsewhere, about the root causes of poverty--including lack of education, corrupt dictatorships, inequitable distribution of wealth, bigotry against social, ethnic, or religious underclasses, and contempt for women.”

Did you give her any money to fight poverty? If not, what have you done to topple some corrupt dictatorships today? To paraphrase your patron saint: “How many divisions did Mother Teresa have?”

"In his 1995 book The Missionary Position, Christopher Hitchens chronicles Teresa's political activities, which included allying herself with die-hard right-wingers fighting the construction of a secular democracy in Spain after Francisco Franco's death and support for the corrupt and violent Duvalier regime in Haiti.”

She actually allied herself with donors of funds for her hospice. Did you donate? Did Christopher Hitchens?

“In her Nobel acceptance speech in Oslo, Teresa declared, 'Abortion is the worst evil, and the greatest enemy of peace...Because if a mother can kill her own child, what will prevent us from killing ourselves or one another? Nothing.' A woman who considers abortion the greatest enemy of world peace has no business lecturing anyone about the importance of loving one's neighbor.”

So now we come to your chief complaint. Is that what brought this amazing, fulminating rant out of you? That you can't stand someone who doesn't believe in abortion? Give it a rest.

Craig,

I don't think that MT's religion kept her from promoting somthing that would have done even more in the long run. She just didn't see it as her job to completely change the system that caused poverty. This is not to say that she didn't think that the system needed to change. Rather, it is to recognize that she saw feeding the 1,000 people you mention as a vital service that someone had to provide. That service provider was her.

Sure she could have stopped serving those people to work for systematic change. However, if she had done this the 1,000 people she fed would have gone hungry. She made a choice on what good she wanted to do, and did that good. Let someone else work for the structural change that is needed.

"Doing even more" would have had its own costs that could be complained about. What should be focused on is not what she didn't do, but how much good she did do. How many of us can honestly claim to have helped as many people over the course of our lives as were provided assistance by MT in a week? How many other people did she motivate to struggle against the injustices of economic inequality and suffering?

It is not better or worse to combat sources of injustice as opposed to results of injustice. Both need to be combated. However, the unfortunate truth is that we often can't do both at the same time. If you choose to push for structural change while I push for addressing immediate need, I will still give you all the support I think is deserved while I would expect the same. I believe that this is how we should view MT's acts.

Craig,

I don't think that MT's religion kept her from promoting somthing that would have done even more in the long run. She just didn't see it as her job to completely change the system that caused poverty. This is not to say that she didn't think that the system needed to change. Rather, it is to recognize that she saw feeding the 1,000 people you mention as a vital service that someone had to provide. That service provider was her.

Sure she could have stopped serving those people to work for systematic change. However, if she had done this the 1,000 people she fed would have gone hungry. She made a choice on what good she wanted to do, and did that good. Let someone else work for the structural change that is needed.

"Doing even more" would have had its own costs that could be complained about. What should be focused on is not what she didn't do, but how much good she did do. How many of us can honestly claim to have helped as many people over the course of our lives as were provided assistance by MT in a week? How many other people did she motivate to struggle against the injustices of economic inequality and suffering?

It is not better or worse to combat sources of injustice as opposed to results of injustice. Both need to be combated. However, the unfortunate truth is that we often can't do both at the same time. If you choose to push for structural change while I push for addressing immediate need, I will still give you all the support I think is deserved while I would expect the same. I believe that this is how we should view MT's acts.

Chapel Hill, NC should know better than lift quotes out of context. Even so, it is difficult to understand how educational philosopher, Paulo Freire, could begin to understand the needs of those receiving the ministry of MT. Most of them were too weak to stretch out their hands.

victoria wrote: "so heres what you do- you KEEP pulling folks out of the river, and you tell the people on the riverbank that you've already saved to do something about the psychopath throwing people in-"

You entirely missed the point. The point is that it's better to combat the source of the problem rather than spending all your time dealing with the *results* of the problem.

"you discount the people helped completely."

Good grief it was just a story.

But let's drag it back to the real world. Instead of you pulling out drowning people, let's say you're Mother Teresa feeding poor people. OK, you fed 1000 people today. Great, I applaud your efforts, I really do. But tomorrow they're going to be hungry again. They're not going to be able to stop the villain throwing people off the bridge because tomorrow they're going to be back in the river.

I'm not saying that Mother Teresa didn't do good things. I'm saying that her religion kept her from promoting the thing that would have done even more in the long run to reduce the amount of suffering she was struggling against.

Lets get something clear, I am a liberal, atheist, and a "Free Thinker".

Susan Jacoby does not represent atheist, agnostic, or believers, so I suggest stopping the attacks on anyone's belief.

Susan Jacoby does not represent "free thinkers", intelectuals, and definetily does not posses the intelligence to argue intelligently; I dare say, based on this article, she is irrational.

Susan Jacoby has a good education, a very good command of the English Language, and a forum to spew unjustifiable attacks without fear of its consequences, her targets can not respond. e.g. Mother Teresa.

Those of you who think she, Jacoby, is a breath of fresh air, that she provokes or stimulates intelligent discussions, I say get some fresh air and re-read this blog. Unless you find hate, personal attacks, and religious insults stimulating, you need to become a free thinker yourself and stop revering this garbage, it is neither intelligent or rational.

This article is an indefensible attack without substance, a nonsensical jumble of words, on a person who asked nothing for herself and who submitted her life to helping others.

And, finally, I will bet, Susan Jacoby, is not reading any of these comments, she is UNSELFISHLY thinking of no one but herself.

Lets get something clear, I am a liberal, atheist, and a "Free Thinker".

Susan Jacoby does not represent atheist, agnostic, or believers, so I suggest stopping the attacks on anyone's belief.

Susan Jacoby does not represent "free thinkers", intelectuals, and definetily does not posses the intelligence to argue intelligently; I dare say, based on this article, she is irrational.

Susan Jacoby has a good education, a very good command of the English Language, and a forum to spew unjustifiable attacks without fear of its consequences, her targets can not respond. e.g. Mother Teresa.

Those of you who think she, Jacoby, is a breath of fresh air, that she provokes or stimulates intelligent discussions, I say get some fresh air and re-read this blog. Unless you find hate, personal attacks, and religious insults stimulating, you need to become a free thinker yourself and stop revering this garbage, it is neither intelligent or rational.

This article is an indefensible attack without substance, a nonsensical jumble of words, on a person who asked nothing for herself and who submitted her life to helping others.

And, finally, I will bet, Susan Jacoby, is not reading any of these comments, she is UNSELFISHLY thinking of no one but herself.

Darn double posts! Sorry!

I'm curious where it says in the Bible that lepers were outcasted. And is this a suggestion that God outcasted them? I do recall Jesus curing them, though. Might want to get your facts straight Neal.

Mike K.posted:

"It's rather telling that of all the criticism directed towards Ms. Jacoby, nary a person addresses her actual comments."

Ryan Haber Responded:

"You'll notice that I did not criticize Ms. Jacoby, but restrained myself to critquing her comments about Mother Teresa.

Incidentally, some of Ms. Jacoby's comments about Mother Teresa were very much ad hominem, and so, to be fair, Ms. Jacoby has rather opened herself up to such attacks, hasn't she?

Fair is fair."

I agree with Ryan. I addressed specifically what Susan wrote without the ad hominem attack that might have been "fair", but not right.

Frankly, Mike K, your accusation really does nothing to further the conversation...especially since you aren't conversing with anyone who did address the article...so what really is the point?

Mike K.posted:

"It's rather telling that of all the criticism directed towards Ms. Jacoby, nary a person addresses her actual comments."

Ryan Haber Responded:

"You'll notice that I did not criticize Ms. Jacoby, but restrained myself to critquing her comments about Mother Teresa.

Incidentally, some of Ms. Jacoby's comments about Mother Teresa were very much ad hominem, and so, to be fair, Ms. Jacoby has rather opened herself up to such attacks, hasn't she?

Fair is fair."

I agree with Ryan. I addressed specifically what Susan wrote without the ad hominem attack that might have been "fair", but not right.

Frankly, Mike K, your accusation really does nothing to further the conversation...especially since you aren't conversing with anyone who did address the article...so what really is the point?

This is rediculous. I'm flabergasted that the Washington Post would publish such a slanderous article, this is widly insensitive, and I would like this article to be taken down.

This is rediculous. I'm flabergasted that the Washington Post would publish such a slanderous article, this is widly insensitive, and I would like this article to be taken down.

This is rediculous. I'm flabergasted that the Washington Post would publish such a slanderous article, this is widly insensitive, and I would like this article to be taken down.

(I see there were some other Patricks since I was here, but think Free Thinker wrongly read mine anyway).
Samir Saha of Sweden said it perfectly. I agree with him/her 100%.

And the 'Teresa' business is really ignorant. I can't stand 'Mother Teresa' either, but if I were writing a violent critique of her I would not be such a Cosmo Girl and call her 'Teresa', like I was at some gossippy hen party. She's nobody's 'mother' as far as I'm concerned, but she just happened to be good at being around filthy conditions and improving the diseased poor. It's really nothing holy anyway, she just liked it, and it was a very specialized mission. She did a pretty good job, even though her self-righteousness is an enormous bore. At least she wasn't MEDIOCRE at what she does, like Ms. Jacoby, who could just go be on 'All My Children' or something.

Someone calling themselves 'Former Christian' wrote:

"Did you ever notice that the most hateful, spiteful posts in this column are usually from the followers of Jesus? Patrick is a good example."

I think there was no other Patrick posting in this thread, but if you are referring to the one where I quote someone named 'Suzanne' saying Ms. Jacoby needs 'help and medication' I also said this 'Suzanne' person would be the ordinary blog troll, because disagreeing with someone's blog post does not mean they need medication and help--or at least medical help. I don't think Ms. Jacoby can WRITE, period. Her ideas are not all that off the mark, she's must mediocre and ersatz. She doesn't sound like an unbalanced person, just untalented and should be in another profession. So, if you were referring to my post quoting Suzanne's vulgarity about 'meds', then start reading more carefully. And I am NOT a follower of Jesus, even if I once thought I was. I am a polytheist pagan, if that's any of your business.

Hmmmmm wrote:

"Cuddling a leper in your arms as they die, allowing them some dignity in their last moments.

And people find a way to criticize that.

Why am I not surprised."

As someone who lived and worked with victims of leprosy for some time I feel obligated to point out that it's generally not a good idea to define people by their diseases and most victims of Leprosy or Hansen's Disease, as it is also known, resent being called "lepers".

I suspect you choose them for your example because of the stereotypical, perceived "repulsive" nature of their disease, and that only the most godly could be counted on to minister to them. Ironically enough, victims of Leprosy were outcast and shunned for millenia largely because that's what the Bible said to do with them.

And while I suppose that "cuddling" them and "allowing" them "some" dignity "in their last moments" is better than nothing at all, my respect goes to the godless, heathen hospital workers I knew who dressed ulcerated sores 3 times a day for years on end without the faintest hope or concern of ever becoming a saint.

Hmmmmm wrote:

"Cuddling a leper in your arms as they die, allowing them some dignity in their last moments.

And people find a way to criticize that.

Why am I not surprised."

As someone who lived and worked with victims of leprosy for some time I feel obligated to point out that it's generally not a good idea to define people by their diseases and most victims of Hansen's Disease, as it is now known, resent being called "lepers".

I suspect you choose them for your example because of the stereotypical, perceived "repulsive" nature of their disease, and that only the most godly could be counted on to minister to them. Ironically enough, victims of Leprosy were outcast and shunned for millenia largely because that's what the Bible said to do with them.

And while I suppose that "cuddling" them and "allowing" them "some" dignity "in their last moments" is better than nothing at all, my respect goes to the godless, heathen hospital workers I knew who dressed ulcerated sores 3 times a day for years on end without the faintest hope or concern of ever becoming a saint.

(^_^):

"As I lay on my death bed suffering from the final stages of tuberculosis, I recall my life growing up in the slums of Calcutta. I never had any material possessions but I did receive my mother's love until her death from malnutrition. Now I am all alone in this world, a teenager without a family.
Out of the shadows of the hallway, I perceive a female figure approaching me in an apparent attempt to aid me in my last moments. She seems to want to impart to me warmth and love."
Is it Susan,you ask,or is it mother Teresa?

My comment;
I am sitting at my desk in the world trade center,
glancing out of the window I see a plane that appears to be headed right at my building,
right at my floor in fact.I stand up somewhat concerned,as others are doing.Some women start to
get alarmed.The plane keeps on coming right at us.
People start to scream and head for the doors.
The plane is immense now,filling the whole window
then explodes into the building like a nuclear bomb.
Who do you think is at the controls?
Somebody rational or somebody religious?
I mean come on!
Some people will do anything to get into heaven,
from caring for the poor to blowing people up.
Religion is a wonderful tool for manipulating
others,and to get them to behave in wild and/or
wonderful ways.And it can make you crazy.

Does anyone see the connection that Hitchens, Jacoby and Harris are all atheistic Jews attacking a revered Christian woman...

Some alterer motivations, perhaps? Maybe it was the talmudic teachings as a child?

Does it matter that Mother Teresa doubted? She carried on what she felt was helping others...even in her doubt. It's so easy to do hard work when you are certain about the end of the journey...it's harder when all you have is the daily sparks of hope.

What thinking person does not have doubt? I really do not care if my Gods are "real" or not...matters naught to me. I will do what I feel is right and not for some reward in the after life. All anyone can go by is the connection we have to each other.

Mother Teresa made lives better...she made a country better...if she had doubt or certainty, so what? she carried on and showed what her love was.

terra

what a strange analogy craig- completely further fetched, but lets go with it-

only if you are an irredeemable moron would you continue to pull people from the river without any remote curiosity as to where they are coming from-
so heres what you do- you KEEP pulling folks out of the river, and you tell the people on the riverbank that you've already saved to do something about the psychopath throwing people in-

o wait, you dont have to tell them anything do you? because they already told you this information-

this scenario only works in a universe populated by one person-

you discount the people helped completely.
talk about an inflated sense of self importance!

Curious wrote: "So, instead of feeding the poor, she should have handed them some condoms? You say, "sorry, we're not giving out food and water anymore; instead, we're building this new state-of-the-art combination school/planned parenthood/abortion clinc."

If you really want a long-term solution, yes, that's exactly what you should do. Birth control would probably have been the single most helpful thing for the people Mother Teresa wanted to help, but being a staunch Catholic, she rejected it.

There's an analogy about saving people from a river. You are walking along the riverbank when you see someone flailing around in the water. So you dive in and pull them out and they tell you someone threw them off the bridge upstream. Just then, two more people float by, so you go pull them out. Then four more float by. Then eight. You get so busy pulling people out of the water that you never get time to go see who's throwing them off the bridge.

Immediacy of belief is something we can learn from Mother Teresa.

When facing doubt in her spiritual life, she did not opt for further study, hoping to solve the problem on an intellectual level, she "did".

Following these words, "Whatsoever to do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me." Ministering to the poor, the abandoned, the discarded is what she did and what she taught.

Maybe Susan Jacoby would like to do further research and interview some of the people who are alive now because they were cared for due to Mother Teresa's programs and campaigns. Or should they have been left to die as the world is overpopulated anyway?

Mitigating pain and suffering by care is vastly important--and only one who has been so fortunate that they have not experienced pain, suffering, hunger or want of any kind would denigrate those who care.

I am not Catholic. I think it is important to respect those who aim to live their ideals in such a way that they help others. Obviously Mother Teresa was not perfect--what is remarkable is that she accomplished what she did.

Just a few basic thoughts--intellectual rigor has its place, faith has its place and the two are not mutually exclusive. It doesn't hurt to remember, "First, do no harm."

am i to believe that atheists or agnostics (or all in between- have patience with my unfamiliarity with the terms)
never question their own rejection of belief systems?
it seems intellectually shallow to me-
i had imagined that the process was one of deep mentation and searching to arrive at the conclusion of no god-
not a flippant or lightly entered upon declaration of rejection (which is actually still a reaction)

im not trying to be funny or anything, but to me ANY philosophy adhered to without question is a hypocrisy-

i find no difference between the inflexible "knowing " of pat robertson, or ms. jacoby.

does being an atheist mean freedom to judge others without self criticism, or is humility in ones demeanor a thing to be sneered at?

i have always assumed pretty high intentions from most atheists- but this is very close to a gleeful vindictiveness that i fond unsettling and a bit repulsive.

Mother Theresa was a compassionate individual dedicated for the well being of poor people who cannot speak for themselves. Who cares if she has had some spiritual doubt? Many physicians began to doubt their religion when they are exposed to the real medical field, but that doesn't exactly become news at 11 now does it? So why the special hating against Mother Theresa? She is no less human than everyone else within the world, and spiritual doubt happens in any individual who believes in a Supreme Being while doing her type of work, so why reserve the special hot pinata for this dead woman? Who cares if she feels spiritual void, or that she is bringing fame to the field she is working? I would say she is doing good PR for her work, and is doing exactly what you wanted her to do: exposing poverty and getting more people to help her cause. Without getting the media exposure, she would just be toiling for the cause without additional resource, which is self-defeating.

As to her seeking fame and the media spotlight: if she works in the dirtiest of places for the poorest of people with the "meagerest" of resources and did ALL THAT for fame only, well good for her. Plenty of celebrities have been famous for even less worthy causes, one can only think of Paris Hilton with her sex video or Lindsey Lohan for her drunk driving, or even more recently, Owen Wilson's attempted suicide making the radio headlines. Fame and fortune is cheap to make for celebrities, but you would rather crucify Mother Theresa's work than discussing the shallowness of the media attention span... well poo.

Virtue isn't shown in diaries honey; actions speak louder than words. Mother Theresa has helped countless people everyday doing a job that you or I may never do in our lifetime. She works in the dirtiest of places with the sickest of people, while the closest you will get close to that kind of environment is a car stroll through the NYC slum or the Washington D.C slum. She has dedicated her humanitarian work on the basis of poverty, what have you done?

OK - I agree that the author's "Ann Coulter" style is uncalled for, and alot of the vitriol should be ignored. But she made at least one valid point.

I agree that M. Teresa thought she was helping he poor, and she certainly didn't put her physical well-being above others. What she was thinking in terms of her spiritual well-being, I'm not so sure.

But, from what I've read elsewhere, it was a fact that the terminally ill received absolutely no health care when under M. Teresa's wing. All she offered them was a place to die horribly. There can be little doubt that she was an "Old School" Catholic in that she believed that life, rather than a gift from God, was a period of penance and suffering required to meet the entrance requirements to Heaven. I'm sure that in her mind she was speeding them on to heaven, but in my book she rates somewhere in the vicinity of "serial killer."

Tony Q:

Great quote. yes...a sect of one.

Which is why I find repulsive both the religious drones and the atheist moralists in this comment board. What a bunch of self-righteous unpleseant people! Nothing a bunch of dogmatic clowns, the religious ones and the ones who oppose it.

"I do not know, and I do not care"

Freestinker and Mike K.

Sorry to only be getting back to you now. My original post should have been clear as to "which God" I referred, as I was quoting the Christian scriptures. That is the same God who teaches to "love your neighbor as yourself," and to "do unto others as you would have done unto you." Despite the offense that many on this posting take at this God and these teachings, their power nonetheless endures. I do not know your gods, but I hope you are at least open to the possibility of the existence of mine. If you are not, then you are not truly free, and I am sorry for you. Nevertheless I will continue to bless and pray for you.

Susan Jacoby is right on, aside from the outdated male-bashing remarks. The canonization of Mother Theresa can become a focal point for an active cultural movement by disbelievers everywhere. What's needed is an alternative venue for social gathering instead of church. People should be provided with singing and entertaining speakers, just like in church. The credulous masses cannot yet be convinced by simple common sense or force of logic, so it seems humor would be the only way to keep them amused. To show that it's okay to disbelieve, it must be shown that it's okay to laugh at religion.
There are a couple of mock-churches going already. Most recently the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster focuses on an equally silly alternative to the Intelligent Design curriculum proposed by the Kansas Schoolboard. Adherents, called "Pastafarians", reports sightings of His Noodly Appendages from artworks all over the world. They contribute toward a pirate ship that is to spread His Word throughout the Caribbean whilst providing the Church hierarchy a delightful tropical cruise.
A more developed doctrine of mockery has accreted around some M.I.T. grad students' email strings from the 70's, gaining strength after publication in the National Lampoon in the 80's. The Church of Subgenius has accumulated enough sophisticated doctrinal blathering to entertain even the most jaded atheist. However, its appeal may be lost on the credulous proletariat who must be targeted if religion is to be truly challenged as a social magnet.
What's needed are charismatic speakers drawing truth-seekers to weekly meetings where they can feel free to disbelieve the religion of their upbringing. The seekers need to hear that mindless faith is not a virtue, that truth is not just whatever makes one feel good, and that the courageous human spirit is all the "spirituality" anyone needs. They need to be entertained and given a basis for self-righteousness. They need an alternative "spiritual" venue that is self-sustaining and competitive with the false forums of religion.
For behold, a Prophet arose from the wilderness of B.S., bringing truth and light to the world. Mock the flocks of the sorely deceived and be freed from the bonds that bind ye. Praise the Human Spirit and pass the offering plate. Awomen.

Mother Teresa's brand of charity falls into what Paulo Freire would have called 'false charity': 'False charity constrains the fearful and subdued, the rejects of life, to extend their trembling hands. True generosity lies in striving so that these hands--whether of individuals or entire peoples--need to be extended less and less in supplications, so that more and more they become human hands which work and working, transform the world.' Freire, Pedagody of the Oppressed.

Jacoby is right, putting band aids on sores is nice, and needed, but to do so without addressing larger issues causing poverty and suffering, is a disservice and even exploitive. All too often the Catholic Church has been in the position of keeping oppressed groups in a position of supplication while reserving power for a select few. Becoming a voyeur of suffering just in order to secure your own salvation is simply another form of exploitation of the poor. The fact that the hospice in Calcutta does not have modern pain killers is an unfortunate example of being a ‘friend of suffering’ and not being a friend of one’s fellow humans.

Superb piece. Thank you.

What a spiteful piece of work. The irony is that "freethinkers" such as Ms. Jacoby dish out dirt on religious people just as gleefully (and maliciously) as the religious "fundamentalists" they so vocally deplore. So much for civilized discussion. If this is the best atheists can come up with, what a sad testimony.

As I understand it, Mother Teresa did her work with the poor a long time before British journalist Malcom Muggeridge found her. He, I think, is responsible for starting the attention. Hints by Jacoby that Mother teresa was a publicty seeker don't jive well with the nun's early work. Check it out.

As to you atheists, if you do not believe in a God, please do not get hysterical about this stuff. To say "I don't believe" but fuss on about the motivations of Mother Teresa is akin to disavowing Santa Claus and then tossing chinaware about each time you hear "The Night Before Christmas" or see the red elf fly across the sky in "Rudolph." If "He" is not there, he is not there -- never has been, never will be. Do not be so angry about it.

In my experience, many atheists have a problem with certain concepts of God, and that's where the anger comes from, but it really is hard to negate the idea of God altogether. Maybe the Freudian Ms. Jacoby can analyze that. Ms. Jacky?

i have noticed that doubt means different things to different mentalities.

to many of the atheists that grace these boards, it seems to indicate some weakness in the chain of faith.

to me, as a faithful person and one whose adult lifetime has been an attempt, sometimes successful sometimes not so successful to serve my fellow humans with as much selflessness as i am poorly capable of-
doubt has served to strengthen my faith.

it all depends upon your perspective and intentions i guess.

peace

Myron Pauli - Great Primate, Brooklyn Atheist Church.

Say WHAT?!? Boy, did that get a laugh here! Nice one.

It so happens that I am the Supreme Illustrious Potentate of the Knights of St. Dogbert.

Make her a saint. Who cares. Wouldn't be the first time the Church did something absurd. Doublethink is their province, and, it seems, the province of many Christians, who take famous cases of religious doubt as all the more evidence of their piety.

Teresa was perhaps the quintessential exemplar of the fundamental disconnect that exists in the religious mind. The need for a public persona of goodness allied with the absolute extreme of selfishness... the quest for eternal life for oneself. Apparently her doubt of heaven led her to the earthly alternative to immortality, sainthood (eternal fame).

I'm surprised by the number of commenters, including atheists, who are, there is no polite way to say it, brainwashed by the media creation that is Teresa. She was apparently by definition the model living saint. Heck, I grew up with that delusion too. We should distrust such assumptions. We should never trust anyone who does good in the service of an afterlife that probably doesn't exist. Such "good" can often take catastrophic forms.

hat Teresa had doubts is not evidence of anything but that she was a thinking person who apparently didn't have the luxury of neural experiences that she could conveniently translate into religious ones.

Make her a saint. Who cares. Wouldn't be the first time the Church did something absurd. Doublethink is their province, and, it seems, the province of many Christians, who take famous cases of religious doubt as all the more evidence of their piety.

Teresa was perhaps the quintessential exemplar of the fundamental disconnect that exists in the religious mind. The need for a public persona of goodness allied with the absolute extreme of selfishness... the quest for eternal life for oneself. Apparently her doubt of heaven led her to the earthly alternative to immortality, sainthood (eternal fame).

I'm surprised by the number of commenters, including atheists, who are, there is no polite way to say it, brainwashed by the media creation that is Teresa. She was apparently by definition the model living saint. Heck, I grew up with that delusion too. We should distrust such assumptions. We should never trust anyone who does good in the service of an afterlife that probably doesn't exist. Such "good" can often take catastrophic forms.

I don't understand Archbishop Jacoby's problem with Theresa becoming a Saint or not. That is a Catholic issue. And opposition to abortion is a Catholic value just as not eating pork is a Orthodox Jewish and Moslem value. I presume that Planned Parenthood will not be beatifying Theresa or John Paul. Anyone who doesn't like it make their own church. As
Saint Thomas (Jefferson) said, "I am a sect of one". Myron Pauli - Great Primate, Brooklyn
Atheist Church.

Jacoby is obvioulsy a Hitchen's soulmate. They deserve each other.

Unlike Jacoby and Hitchens, Mother Theresa just didn't do enough for the poor. She really should have been ashamed of herself.

Susan Jacoby is nothing but a bitter, arrogant elitist who knows nothing about the Catholic faith nor Christianity in general. She thinks she is so wise, but she is a fool. Her statements make zero sense. She thinks that because she has published a few books that no one is interested in then she somehow can claim the moral authority to determine who is a saint and who is not.

Susan Jacoby's attack on Mother Teresa is so ridiculous that it is simply laughable. Mother Teresa is terrible because she opposed abortion? Not everyone on the planet equates abortion with Ms. Jacoby's sacred "reproductive freedom." Many of us unenlightened - the great unwashed that have not attended East Coast Ivy League universities with all of their pseudo-intellectuals - believe that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life.

So what if Mother Teresa questioned her faith? She did so in a spirit of Christian humility. She did wonders for the poor. She believed that all human life - even that of the poorest of the poor - has worth and dignity. Ms. Jacoby, however, would propose that all life that doesn't meet her definition of worthiness is to be discarded and even exterminated, all so people like Ms. Jacoby can live in their material excesses.

Susan Jacoby is a pathetic fraud who spews ludicrous rhetoric in a desperate attempt to resuscitate what is obvious a failed literary career. What a fool.

Patrick,

Which "next world" are you talking about?

... the great pinball arcade in the sky, perhaps?

Wow. I don't read this blog regularly, but Susan you really sound bitter. Sorry to say, but Jesus sounds like he'd be more fun to hang around than you too.

As for MT, whoever can honestly say that they have done more good than she did can cast the first stone. I'm sure the poor would rather have her "band-aids" than all of Susan's intellectual rationalism about poverty and suffering.

And don't get me started on redemption through suffering. Doestoevsky wouldn't be such a wonderful read if there wasn't a kernel of truth in that idea.

A breath of fresh air! Thank you, Susan Jacoby!

Ms. Jacoby's script would be intriguing if it wasn't completely covered in jealousy. It is not a stretch of the imagination to picture her, sitting at home and listening to discussion of the book, saying "Oh come on, she's dead already!"

What productive discussion comes from insults? Why should I even read what you have to say? The only thing I gleaned from this article is that you feel rational and justified in hating someone. How does that further society? By "challenging perceived notions?"

Ms. Jacoby did more than offer an opposing viewpoint; she went so far as to verbally kick an otherwise defenseless dead person and express rage at the person for the media's desire to promote a hypocritical agenda.

So what if Teresa only wished to expose, but not solve, the status of poverty? Here's a lesson from the 20th century: Marxism, socialism, and communism don't work, either. They only replace God with State. I prefer charity freely given over assistance mandated from the state, but I recognize I'm in the minority here. No method of human existance has ever eliminated poverty. And as long as greed exists, no method conceived of by humans ever will.

I don't care to defend Teresa specifically, but flaming outrage that is masked as Op-Ed and given credence as legitimate only serves to discredit the media in which it is portrayed and turn people away.

For those of you that agree with Ms. Jacoby's article, you now have proof that the Fairness Doctrine is completely unnecessary. Hopefully you don't throw the baby of compassion out with the bathwater of religion.

Further evidence of Mother Teresa's hipocrisy can be found in Talk of the Devil: Encounters with Seven Dictators by Riccardo Orizio. He shows her admiration for two famous dictators: Duvalier of Haiti and Enver Hoxha of Albania.
p9alper@msn.com

I would expect nothing more from one without faith or one who speaks like an atheist. I don't even know where to begin... I will begin and end by saying, when Jesus was dying on the cross, some of his last words were "my God why have you forsaken me", a further testament to his human side. If you are not concerned for your place in the next world, you might want to give it some thought!

Thomas Ranieri,

"The foundation of superstition is ignorance, the
superstructure is faith and the dome is a vain hope. Superstition is the child of ignorance and the mother of misery."

- Robert Green Ingersoll (Superstition, 1898)

The doubts of Mother Teresa echo accounts of the "dark night of the soul" experienced by mystics over the centuries, including St. John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, and more recently, Thomas Merton. The amazing thing is that even through extended periods of spiritual drought, the mystics were sustained by previous glimpses of a Reality so luminous and uplifting that they were willing to forego immediate sensory gratification in order to perservere on the path they had chosen for themselves. The experiences of these mystics are obviously not for everyone, but failure to understand them should not lead to "debunking". We have lost so much in recent years, including even the ability to speak about matters not immediately understood, and we have gained so little in return. Mother Teresa inspired so many people, and did so much good. Can we not allow her life to stand on its own merits, doubts and all?

The doubts of Mother Teresa echo accounts of the "dark night of the soul" experienced by mystics over the centuries, including St. John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, and more recently, Thomas Merton. The amazing thing is that even through extended periods of spiritual drought, the mystics were sustained by previous glimpses of a Reality so luminous and uplifting that they were willing to forego immediate sensory gratification in order to perservere on the path they had chosen for themselves. The experiences of these mystics are obviously not for everyone, but failure to understand them should not lead to "debunking". We have lost so much in recent years, including even the ability to speak about matters not immediately understood, and we have gained so little in return. Mother Teresa inspired so many people, and did so much good. Can we not allow her life to stand on its own merits, doubts and all?

Dear Susan,
Because, by your own admission, you have not committed your soul to Jesus, you can have no idea what occurs in the soul of someone who has.
Perhaps you should read St. John of the Cross' "Dark Night of The Soul?" Even as an academic exercise, reading this would reveal the struggle every Christian faces daily; the fight between soul and flesh, between sin and sanctity, between faith and reason.
You should try to look at Jesus - not Mother Teresa - with an open mind and perhaps (dare I suggest? ) an open heart. Following Christ is not a vacation. The trials and questions Mother faced confront all of us. In fact, the more one serves the Lord, the more trials and doubts and questions and torment Satan throws at him or her.
Mother Teresa's diary confirms this. She lived a life of love and service to her fellow man and to Jesus. Satan attacked her accordingly.
The good news for you is that Mother Teresa, like Jesus, would forgive you for your insults and sarcastic attacks.

I thought personal attacks were against the rules of this site. Quick, someone report Susan Jacoby!

The doubts of Mother Teresa echo accounts of the "dark night of the soul" experienced by mystics over the centuries, including St. John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, and more recently, Thomas Merton. The amazing thing is that even through extended periods of spiritual drought, the mystics were sustained by previous glimpses of a Reality so luminous and uplifting that they were willing to forego immediate sensory gratification in order to perservere on the path they had chosen for themselves. The experiences of these mystics are obviously not for everyone, but failure to understand them should not lead to "debunking". We have lost so much in recent years, including even the ability to speak about matters not immediately understood, and we have gained so little in return. Mother Teresa inspired so many people, and did so much good. Can we not allow her life to stand on its own merits, doubts and all?

Susan Jacoby is not smart. Susan Jacoby is not nice. She is one of this army of "shadowy" people, with higher percentage of women than men, who came to surface together with their leader -Hillary Clinton. These people do not appreciate good actions, as it usually takes a lot of hard efforts to accomplish these actions, and it is too direct for them. They do not like someone, having good image even after death. They want to pure dirt on anything and everything, trying to build from this dirt ladders for themselves to the top, or, at least, higher than their current level is, utilizing the love and the interest of meanaverage American to all kinds of scandals. I would like to call these people "scandals employers" and "scandals exploiters". Mother Teresa got sainthood becaus she immensely increase the image and the influence of Roman Church in the part of the world, where this church hadn't been popular prior to her appearance. The sainthood given her by this church after her death is the obvious recognition of what she had accomplished on this church direct behalf. She, sure, utilized the very hard and humble work to accomplish it. Could Susan Jacoby find better way to pave her own career, than to pour dirt on someone, whose drop of urine, when alive, and spec of aches, when dead, worth more than Susan Jacoby has accomplished or ever would accomplish, not mentioning even Susan Jacoby-herself, as a person? Disgusting article, isn't it?

Perhaps some of you live and let live, "enlightened" individuals could explain to me that the only discrimination you tolerate is anti-religious. If you really thought that, then why try to tear down the central tenets of someone's life, while at the same time showing a stunning ignorance of what religion, and specifically Catholicism really is?

If what secularist "thinkers" tell us is true, and there is no truth but what we perceive, how can you possibly stand on "reason" and "logic"? You have no ground to stand on. On the other hand, even hinting at a concrete truth is blasphemous because that might lead back to a God.

As regards this laughably inept article, I must wonder, who has made Ms. Jacoby the final arbiter of what makes a saint, a good Catholic or even person, religious or otherwise. To say that private moments of doubt and despair mean that Mother Therese was a bad or selfish person is idiotic. When someone is depressed or despair, all thoughts center around yourself. This is natural. Publishing her private journals was bound to bring this sort of thing up, and, like the most blatant Straussian, you pick and choose whatever serves your purpose.

I suppose, Ms. Jacoby, that fundraising is now somehow inherently selfish or wrong. Raising money to pay for ministry doesn't taint Mother Therese at all, for surely you aren't implying that she had anything to do with her donors illegal behavior. When you raise money, it is difficult to do a background check on everyone that gives you money.

Surely you must also know that a nun is a "bride of Christ" (metaphorically speaking). If she had a true love for her spiritual bridegroom, it makes sense that she would want to follow his example, and as she dealt with the poor and suffering everyday, it only makes sense that she would emphasis that part of Our Lord's life.

Your comment about abortion to me is just as skewed as her's was to you. Someone as intelligent as yourself, I am certain, knows that there is a deep divide in this culture between those who aren't and are for the murdering of innocent children.

Thus far, people who set about trying to do change a culture from the outside have almost invariably made it worse. I am not sure what you expected Mother Therese to do, except do her best to help those who were actually suffering. In fact, staring into the face of desperate poverty and suffering every day required more bravery and strength than we may distribute in our lifetime.

Perhaps you would do some research, or at least drop the polemics, as regards the Catholic church's theological position, because either you don't know what you are talking about, or you are intentionally misleading and exaggerating.

For instance, saints are intercessors for us to God. However, you may not enter into heaven without having the impurities cleansed from your soul. Once their, you are not encumbered by the fallibilities that are essential to man as he is on earth. Man is just not man, he is possessed of reason and an immortal soul.

I can hear your mocking laughter even as I type these things. Yet, I ask you, as you contemplate a vast nothingness after your deaths, are you comforted? Are you happy that man's pitiful scurrying around all ends in meaninglessness? Enjoy that feeling of smug superiority now, it's all you get.

Mike K.,

Maybe it's Satan Claus?

I hope he will be more specific in the future.

Good piece. I am not going to bother reading the other comments, because I am certain a high percentage will be flames. I think you touch on many points that show how utterly out of touch ancient Judaic religions are with the problems they were created to solve.

This is precisely why new, even more dangerous and sociopathic religions have a chance to be created (Scientology, Latter Day Saints, etc.)

Solution? Bokononism.

Freestinker: I'm betting that Tom was referring to Horus. Or maybe Mithra.

:)

AL-JATHIYA 045.023: Have you then considered him who takes his low desire for his god, and God has made him err having knowledge and has set a seal upon his ear and his heart and put a covering upon his eye. Who can then guide him after god? Will you not then be mindful?

Jesus is not God.

Jesus is not God. Amen.

Jesus is not God. Amen.

Jesus is not God. Amen.

Tom,

No faith necessary. Just a history lesson. Or are you a polytheist?

So tell me, which god were you referring to again? I don't see an answer to my question.

Why the attack? Giving your life over to providing dignity to the dying in the most impoverished conditions is no small potatoes. Bill Gates, indeed, does more for enhancing health and economics, but I doubt he's held many dying hands and emotionally/spiritually helped many dying humans. A long look at History shows the human condition is one that has always had poverty. Gates and Teresa's acts are both vital, but very different. As for her "narcissim", her letters were to her spiritual advisor which should reflect her PERSONAL thoughts. Lastly, the abortion point is a red-herring as she was devouted to Jesus' teachings which boil down to love and empathy to all life. Susan, feeling guilty or something? I mean when is the last time you held a dying impoverished person's hand? Try it sometime. Then look at what you wrote.

Jesus is not God. Amen.

At the very outset, I am not a christian and i dont give a hoot whether the Mother has been beatified or not. Having lived in Calcutta i do have first hand knowledge and experience of the poverty and suffering that the Mother was confronting (almost all people instictively turn a blind eye) and consequently have tremendous awe and respect for her.

This kind of vacuous nonsense is only to be expected from someone like this Jacoby character who has been brought up in a sterilized and airconditioned environment, and has never visited Calcutta or witnessed the suffering firsthand. When you see suffering of that intensity, you do begin to wonder about god, irrespective of your religious beliefs. But that of course would be outside Jacoby's scope of comprehension - she reminds me of the queen who told her starving subjects to eat cake if they could not find bread.

I am as qualified as Jacoby to provide an psychiatric opinion - my analysis is that Jacoby is is going thru menopause and a midlife crisis and is seeking to distract herself by spewing all kinds of nonsense.

Should we surprised that a Liberal Feminist who favors abortion, sterilization, and artificial birth control doesn't think highly of Mother Theresa, a nun who travelled the world preaching against those things?

Still, it's sad that The Washington Post would publish Ms. Jacoby's statements that Mother Theresa is "freaky", "creepy", "narcissistic", and "masochistic".

Can you imagine the response if a Christian writer attacked a major Jewish or Muslim figure this way? The author would face either a lawsuit or a bomb, depending on which religion she offended.

Dignity given to those poor humans dying in poverty is no small potatoes. A long look at History shows poverty is a part of the human condition. Bill Gates, indeed, helps eleviate poverty in a way Teresa never did, but Teresa gave peace and dignity to those in their last hours. They're different things, but equally vital. As for her "narcissim", I don't think it's quite fair to say a few selected letters that are focused on her inner spiritual life should be consider "selfish." The letters, after-all, were written to her spiritual advisor, -hence a relationship that seeks inner PERSONAL reflections. Why the attack? Feeling a little quitly about things Susan? I mean, when is the last time you held a dying person's hands?
As for your abortion point, it's a red-herring. She was a woman devouted to Jesus' teachings which really boil down to love and empathy for everyone.

As I lay on my death bed suffering from the final stages of tuberculosis, I recall my life growing up in the slums of Calcutta. I never had any material possessions but I did receive my mother's love until her death from malnutrition. Now I am all alone in this world, a teenager without a family.
Out of the shadows of the hallway, I perceive a female figure approaching me in an apparent attempt to aid me in my last moments. She seems to want to impart to me warmth and love.

Is it Teresa or is it Susan?

As I lay on my death bed suffering from the final stages of tuberculosis, I recall my life growing up in the slums of Calcutta. I never had any material possessions but I did receive my mother's love until her death from malnutrition. Now I am all alone in this world, a teenager without a family.
Out of the shadows of the hallway, I perceive a female figure approaching me in an apparent attempt to aid me in my last moments. She seems to want to impart to me warmth and love.

Is it Teresa or is it Susan?

Wow Freestinker, I admire your faith!

A beautiful piece demystifying the holiness of Teresa. This once gain proves how futile could be this blind faith created by hallucinatory side effects of the complexities of life and living throughout the ages, ancient and modern.But one thing I must contradict with Susan is that different individuals have different roles in the society; Teresa had a theological approach to human miseries and she definitely was not a politician or a social activist.She did whatever she could successfully or unsuccessfuly, her passion was defnitely involved and her faith integaretd. There is no idea to belittle her social contribution by theological approach made with probably a lot of honesty and integrity compared with the many politicians of current days in Calcutta or California.

Tom,

Lots!

Which one are you referring to?

Oh boy! Corporate Ho Susan Jacoby stands in judgment of Mother Theresa....LOL....what a joke reporters have become.

A beautiful piece demystifying the holiness of Teresa. This once gain proves how futile could be this blind faith created by hallucinatory side effects of the complexities of life and living throughout the ages, ancient and modern.But one thing I must contradict with Susan is that different individuals have different roles in the society; Teresa had a theological approach to human miseries and she definitely was not a politician or a social activist.She did whatever she could successfully or unsuccessfuly, her passion was defnitely involved and her faith integaretd. There is no idea to belittle her social contribution by theological approach made with probably a lot of honesty and integrity compared with the many politicians of current days in Calcutta or California.

How sad for Ms. Jacoby to have such a withered soul, with nothing but dust where the milk of human kindness would be. It is a marker of the coarseness of our times that rather than pitying such damaged beings as Anne Coulter or Susan Jacoby, we celebrate them in a public forum.

It does not reflect either maturity or wisdom to need to tear down icons because they are not perfect. Mother Theresa was human, complex as humans are, neither totally pure nor totally evil. People really need to remember where she was, at what time in history. She had to overcome being the lowest of the low, a woman, in both a religious hierarchy and political culture (India) in which women held no power. You have to remember her religious beliefs were formed pre-Vatican II, and it is hard to imagine overcoming the barrier of trying to raise the fortunes of India's untouchables at this time in history. Really, think of the human suffering that went on in the slums of Calcutta among the untouchables, and the societal mores of the time and place. The culture and religion of country at that time held that such abject suffering was not only acceptable, it was what those people deserved. Her attitudes merely were a reflection of the place and time in which her self and belief structures were formed. I do not think it is possible for any sane human to look at that and wonder how any God could allow it to happen.

It is also human for people to be affected by their fame, and perhaps Mother Theresa was. But I haven't walked a mile in her shoes yet, and neither has Susan Jacoby. What is remarkable about Mother Theresa is not that she perhaps made compromises to achieve her goals, or that she had dark times of doubt, or that she was full of human imperfection, but that she rose out of nothing and persevered in the face of seemingly insurmountable barriers to bring the spotlight of the world onto human poverty and man's inhumanity to man.

Well, speaking as a staunch atheist myself, this ugly rant by Jacoby is exactly the kind of thing that makes people think all atheists are nasty, bitter wretches like Madeleine Murray O'Hair. Tell you what, Susan; you go spend a few decades in calcutta tending to the dying and then you'll have some cred with me. Based on this, I'd rather spend eternity with Jerry Falwell then five minutes with Jacoby.

A fly on the wall wrote:

"You know, I would really like to be at the metaphorical pearly gates when Jacoby is standing there and Jesus comes out and when looking at her life's works asks her to explain this opinion column calling Mother Teresa a hypocrite and fraud. Now that will be entertainment, listening to her trying to justify her comments."

Fly,

You are the one (see your post above) who said that the pearly gates were metaphorical ... I was just agreeing with you!

Well, speaking as a staunch atheist myself, this ugly rant by Jacoby is exactly the kind of thing that makes people think all atheists are nasty, bitter wretches like Madeleine Murray O'Hair. Tell you what, Susan; you go spend a few decades in calcutta tending to the dying and then you'll have some cred with me. Based on this, I'd rather spend eternity with Jerry Falwell then five minutes with Jacoby.

Well, speaking as a staunch atheist myself, this ugly rant by Jacoby is exactly the kind of thing that makes people think all atheists are nasty, bitter wretches like Madeleine Murray O'Hair. Tell you what, Susan; you go spend a few decades in calcutta tending to the dying and then you'll have some cred with me. Based on this, I'd rather spend eternity with Jerry Falwell then five minutes with Jacoby.

Susan, I don't disagree with you that some of MT's positions were harmful and wrong. I am not catholic and don't believe in Sainthood, and think that if one struggles for Sainthood their work will always be tainted by self interest even if it is "saintly". However, I have to take issue with your (and Hitchen's) criticism of the work that MT did in Calcuta.

You seem to be saying that she had an obligation to do more than she did in Calcutta. That MT had an obligation to work for structural change, to provide medicine, to make sure that people got jobs, etc. In short it seems to me that you want her personally to take responsibility for working to totally end poverty where she was.

Perhaps MT could have done more to fight all of these things, but I don't think that she had a responsibility to do one bit more than she did. We can not rest responsiblity for the world on the shoulders of one person. Her work and goal was not to do the things that you want her to do. She was there to provide assistance to those in desperate need and she did that. In doing so she also called attention to the plight of the poor that she worked with and brought others to her struggle who could do all of the things that you seem to have wanted her to do.

The reallity is that MT knew something that most of us working in the social justice field know. That truth is that no one person or organization can change the whole world. We can't all be radicals flying from one cause to another trying to save the environment one week, end poverty another, and then end the genocide in Darfur the next. There is a need for dedicated individuals who will remain committed to changing the world where they are and how they can. These people will bring about real change, and through their actions will change the rest of the world. Despite the limited reach of MT's mission in Calcuta, how many people do you think that she inspired to work for real structural change? How many anti-poverty movements around the world have been given strength by her work? I would guess more than just a handful.

If you want to say that MT was not a Saint, I will stand beside you and say Amen. However, this should also cause us to acknowledge that she was only human and could only accomplish so much. Whether or not you think that she contributed to some right wing causes and hurt people in some ways, she also did a great deal of good. For that, she should be commended.

Susan, I don't disagree with you that some of MT's positions were harmful and wrong. I am not catholic and don't believe in Sainthood, and think that if one struggles for Sainthood their work will always be tainted by self interest even if it is "saintly". However, I have to take issue with your (and Hitchen's) criticism of the work that MT did in Calcuta.

You seem to be saying that she had an obligation to do more than she did in Calcutta. That MT had an obligation to work for structural change, to provide medicine, to make sure that people got jobs, etc. In short it seems to me that you want her personally to take responsibility for working to totally end poverty where she was.

Perhaps MT could have done more to fight all of these things, but I don't think that she had a responsibility to do one bit more than she did. We can not rest responsiblity for the world on the shoulders of one person. Her work and goal was not to do the things that you want her to do. She was there to provide assistance to those in desperate need and she did that. In doing so she also called attention to the plight of the poor that she worked with and brought others to her struggle who could do all of the things that you seem to have wanted her to do.

The reallity is that MT knew something that most of us working in the social justice field know. That truth is that no one person or organization can change the whole world. We can't all be radicals flying from one cause to another trying to save the environment one week, end poverty another, and then end the genocide in Darfur the next. There is a need for dedicated individuals who will remain committed to changing the world where they are and how they can. These people will bring about real change, and through their actions will change the rest of the world. Despite the limited reach of MT's mission in Calcuta, how many people do you think that she inspired to work for real structural change? How many anti-poverty movements around the world have been given strength by her work? I would guess more than just a handful.

If you want to say that MT was not a Saint, I will stand beside you and say Amen. However, this should also cause us to acknowledge that she was only human and could only accomplish so much. Whether or not you think that she contributed to some right wing causes and hurt people in some ways, she also did a great deal of good. For that, she should be commended.

Mike K.

Sticks and stones.

If you're going to make comments that you can't back up and that are ridiculous in light of what is already known to be true, then you're gonna get called on it. Suck it up.

Barbara reminds me of a great idea. Those of you who believe Susan Jacoby can have a look for yourselves (gathering evidence, perhaps). The Missionaries of Charity have houses to care for the sick and dying in New York, Baltimore, San Francisco, and many other places in the US. Go check one out for yourself. See if you still agree with SJ and CH.

Barbara wrote:

"By her own admission, Mother Teresa never fed any poor people or gave them any other help. When she was interviewed on "60 Minutes" some years ago, Mike Wallace asked her why she did nothing to meet the physical needs of the dying poor: food, shelter, medical care. Her response, barked severely: "I am not a social worker!" Her supporters apparently would rather believe her extremely effective self-publicity than her own words. Feed the poor? No, she was interested only in harvesting their souls for the God in which she so famously did not believe, thus demonstrating her sainthood."

Your information is partially incorrect an partially taken out of context. First the part that is out of context is the "I am not a social worker" comment, which was made to Christopher Hitchens, the drunk. She told him that she does what she does not for Christ; that she is not a social worker. Hitchens, being who he is, of course would not understand this comment. It doesn't mean that she was doing it to convert people to Christianity. It meant she was doing it because that is what Christ would have her do.

The rest of your quote is just incorrect. She of course did provide food, shelter and medical attention to thousands and thousands of people.

Let's see. Here Missionaries of Charity now have more than 4,000 nuns running orphanages, AIDS hospices, and charity centers worldwide, and caring for refugees, the blind, disabled, aged, alcoholics, the poor and homeless, and victims of floods, epidemics, and famine.

Susan Jacoby's animosity towards someone who did more for others in one week than most of us will do in our lives is astounding. I have no problem with someone having a less than favorable opinion of Mother Teresa, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but Miss Jacobys disdain hints of hatred. What is there to hate about someone who did little else but serve the poor and the sick? Perhaps her feelings are those that belong in a psychology textbook.

...the whole problem is that fools and fanatics are so full of certainty...and wise men so full of doubt...
Betrand Russell

Hi Freestinker-

You ask "Which God are you referring to?" How many are there?

Given a choice of a world where my half of humanity is, and always has been, oppressed and the only rules are those of the oppressor, or, a world where there is immutable right and wrong and we each have the freedom to seek either, what would one choose?

It makes perfect sense to me to spend my allotted bit of eternity whining about my bad luck and throwing stones at those who have chosen otherwise.

How fortunate that feminists tend not have children.

Thanks Susan for another thought provoking article. I'm sure there are many entries chastising you for taking a hard look at MT, and not holding back. Kudos to you for doing so!

Thanks to the Wash. Post for allowing a secular opinion.

Well, Ms Jacoby seems a little bit angry at MT. As a Catholic I can pass along some information, just FYI: MT's desire to be a saint is what every follower of Christ is supposed to have, it is to be the norm not the exception; the Catholic church does not "make" saints, but rather declares after very careful investigation that a person is in heaven as a saint, based on the evidence of the person's life and the evidence provided by God (those "bogus miracles" Ms J rants against are significant); when a person is declared a saint it is a testimony to the person's holiness and fidelity to the faith, not to the person's political insights, good taste in art, or ability to pick a winning sports team. MT brought peace, comfort, dignity, and the love of God to the lives of millions... not bad for any mere mortal.

Long after critics are gone and forgotten, Mother Teresa -- saint or not -- will be rembered as someone with the compassion to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and care for the sick and dying.

Maybe that was only "bandaids on sores," but it's not bad for someone who was a frail, flawed, conflicted person of faith.

I'm not sure how mean spirited,nasty attacks help those who suffer. But maybe those write with such calloused vitriol somehow feel better about themself.

Long after critics are gone and forgotten, Mother Teresa -- saint or not -- will be rembered as someone with the compassion to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and care for the sick and dying.

Maybe that was only "bandaids on sores," but it's not bad for someone who was a frail, flawed, conflicted person of faith.

I'm not sure how mean spirited,nasty attacks help those who suffer. But maybe those write with such calloused vitriol somehow feel better about themself.

Tom,

Which god are you referring to?

Mike K.,

"It's rather telling that of all the criticism directed towards Ms. Jacoby, nary a person addresses her actual comments."

You'll notice that I did not criticize Ms. Jacoby, but restrained myself to critquing her comments about Mother Teresa.

Incidentally, some of Ms. Jacoby's comments about Mother Teresa were very much ad hominem, and so, to be fair, Ms. Jacoby has rather opened herself up to such attacks, hasn't she?

Fair is fair.

If you think Susan Jacoby is over the top,
read "The Missionary Position"
By Christopher Hitchins
his Mother Theresa tell all.Its a giggle.

Good grief. I'm probably nearly as secular as Susan Jacoby, but this is over-the-top cynical. So Mother Teresa is not the person Jacoby wishes she was. Gee, sorry Susan. Not the person the media said she was. The media, of which Ms. Jacoby is a part, may have misrepresented her as it tends to get a lot wrong, but that's not her fault. Vain? Maybe, maybe not. She led an exemplary life, one of great self-sacrifice. Maybe that kind of dedication requires some measure of vanity. Her self-doubts suggest an honesty that many many religious nuts would never allow themselves, and therefore claim the "obligation" to condemn non-believers. There's a lot of that going around.

Basically this column is mean, arrogant, gratuitously hostile, and pointless. If Ms. Jacoby thinks sainthood is "nonsensical" why does she care who gets it? I can't take her seriously.

Just a couple of points.

1. Mother Teresa left ending poverty up to others, like Christopher Hitchens and Susan Joacoby, who have obviously done a stellar job on that front themselves. Her primary focus with the poor and dying was to show them that they are loved before they left this world. I cannot imagine a more beautiful vocation among either the poor or the rich.

2. Mother Teresa opposed contraception because it contradicts the nature of sex like bulemia contradicts the nature of eating. But she taught women the world over fertility awareness so they could avoid relations, and hence pregnancy, during the fertile time of their cycles. I do not understand how our world thinks it better to fill women in the developing world with synthetic hormones than to treat them like adults by giving them real information about their bodies. Oh, the information is free. I guess that's bad because the pharmaceutical manufacturers don't make any money.

3. I understand how many can be confused by MT's stated desire for suffering. The Catholic idea is that suffering imitates Jesus, and one who desires union with Jesus must imitate him. It would be like a husband with a sick wife wishing he could share in her sufferings. This is love and may not always be logical. But it's presumptuous and ridiculous to characterize it as "selfish."

Good grief. I'm probably nearly as secular as Susan Jacoby, but this is over-the-top cynical. So Mother Teresa is not the person Jacoby wishes she was. Gee, sorry Susan. Not the person the media said she was. The media, of which Ms. Jacoby is a part, may have misrepresented her as it tends to get a lot wrong, but that's not her fault. Vain? Maybe, maybe not. She led an exemplary life, one of great self-sacrifice. Maybe that kind of dedication requires some measure of vanity. Her self-doubts suggest an honesty that many many religious nuts would never allow themselves, and therefore claim the "obligation" to condemn non-believers. There's a lot of that going around.

Basically this column is mean, arrogant, gratuitously hostile, and pointless. If Ms. Jacoby thinks sainthood is "nonsensical" why does she care who gets it?

Hitchens and his sidekick (Jacoby) are both adherents of socialism and Hitchens is an avowed follower of Trotsky. (and both happen to be jewish). PS - Hitchens advocates the war in Iraq and is a neo conservative radical (not to be confused with a true conservative)

They detest Christians because they wish to have people follow their vanguard political example and to implement their desired social policies.

Population control via contraceptive has been proven ineffective in recent studies because the onus is on the male to use the condom and since most developing countries are male dominated they are NOT used.
(even in the US most women do not require men to use condoms - at least in my experience)

The final solution to population control for socialists who wish to control every aspect of peoples lives is abortion on demand.

Bottom line is that condom use is not effective in developing countries - the Catholic Church knows this and therefore promotes marriage and faithfulness to prevent disease and other social ills.

Good grief. I'm probably nearly as secular as Susan Jacoby, but this is over-the-top cynical. So Mother Teresa is not the person Jacoby wishes she was. Gee, sorry. Not the person the media said she was. The media, of which Ms. Jacoby is a part, may have misrepresented her, but that's not her fault. Vain? Maybe, maybe not. She led an exemplary life, one of great self-sacrifice. Her self-doubts suggest an honesty that many many religious nuts would never allow themselves, and give them the "right" to condemn non-believers. There's a lot of that going around.

Basically this column is mean, arrogant, gratuitously hostile, and pointless. If Ms. Jacoby thinks sainthood is "nonsensical" why does she care who gets it?

I doubt, therefore I am
thinking.

Scott Douglas,

You're wrong. The historiography of the era does have all sorts of comments concerning Jesus and the earliest (ca. AD 100 or earlier) Christians. To wit, refer to Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus - none of whom liked Christians, and all of whom took the existence of Jesus very seriously, and within a generation of his lifetime.

Secondly, you don't know about the composition of the Gospels. The last one, John, was composed by the year 100 or so, at the latest. The earliest may have been composed by the year 60 or so, within a generation of Jesus' lifetime.

Thirdly, for evidence of Jesus' lifetime you have only to look at the reality of the Church. Where did it come from, otherwise? And how did they manage to capture the interest of both serious philosophers, rulers, merchants, as well as beggars, Jewish vagrants, and prostitutes. Moreover, and more to the point, why did they bother to put up with 300 years of sporadic, bloody persecution with no social gain whatsoever (until about 313 when the situation reversed suddenly and unexpectedly)?

If there was no Jesus, you have a lot more explaining to do that Christians do if there was a Jesus.

Ms. Jacoby,

I don't agree with many of Mother Teresa's social views but you have got it totally wrong when it comes to interpreting her letters.

The ritualistic component of religion, the one that truly stokes fundamentalism and extremism, may well demand that superficial claims of oneness with God must be vociferously pronounced in amphitheaters. Bu the spiritual component of religion, the true reason behind its survival as a force for good (it's in REAL short supply these days) acknowledges doubt.

You have taken a shallow look at the Mother. What she did for decades in the slums of Calcutta for the people living lives that are undescribable requires spiritual strength of the highest order. To reduce the debate about Mother Teresa just to her thoughts while ignoring her actions is myopic to say the least.

I take exceptional objection to the comparison with the a war criminal like Kissinger. You have little perspective and are too down the path of prejudice to objectively look at woman's life, which like many of us was flawed in ways but like very few gave so much back with humility.

Peace.

Good grief. I'm probably nearly as secular as Susan Jacoby, but this is over-the-top cynical. So Mother Teresa is not the person Jacoby wishes she was. Gee, sorry. Not the person the media said she was. The media, of which Ms. Jacoby is a part, may have misrepresented her, but that's not her fault. Vain? Maybe, maybe not. She led an exemplary life, one of great self-sacrifice. Her self-doubts suggest an honesty that many many religious nuts would never allow themselves, and give them the "right" to condemn non-believers. There's a lot of that going around.

Basically this column is mean, arrogant, gratuitously hostile, and pointless. If Ms. Jacoby thinks sainthood is "nonsensical" why does she care who gets it?

Curious: My apologies. I must have missed your insightful and direct critiques of Susan's work between you calling me an "idiot" and "stupid". My bad.

"Opposing views are always good and welcome, not hate-filled diatribes."

Could have fooled me.

Once, Mother Teresa, while responding to questions from a reporter, paid less attention to the interviewer than to a small baby abandoned into her care that she attempted to feed with bottle of milk. The reporter asked her whether, in view of the scale of world poverty, her efforts made any difference. Her response: "no, but look how well he sucks".

Many people can give you reasons why acts of charity are wasted. Perhaps their reasons are valid and the greatest good is abortion which obviates all human suffering from a very early point.

Ryan,

You noted: "Membership isn't gained by birth, but by baptism; it isn't maintained by holding onto an identity-label, but by communion and confession as prescribed by the rules that govern membership.

Let me take a "leap in Faith" here. You were bred, born and brainwashed in Catholicism and still believe in "pwtffts". Ditto for MT no doubt. Had she been born in this time of reality reflection, she would not have any questions about our faith i.e. as per the teachings in many graduate theology classes at major Catholic universities:

1. There was no physical resurrection (i.e. Heaven is a Spirit State)

2. And it therefore follows there was no ascension and no assumption.

3. There is/was no original sin. A&E were fictional characters living in a mythical land.

4. And it therefore follows, baptism does not erase original sin since there is no sin to erase. Limbo therefore is a non-issue.

5. Jesus was crucified but details of the deed have little historic verification.

As per Professor J.D. Crossan,
From his and Watts book, Who is Jesus????

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety. I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

And then there are these observations by another good Catholic:

As per James Somerville, Philosophy professor emeritus from Xavier University, Cincinnati,
"The faith of the vast majority of believers (and non-believers) depends upon where they were born and when."

And as per Somerville, "There is no religion in Heaven. Religion is only the vehicle to get there. It is left at the Gate."

Christopher Hitchens is a demonstrated liar and lied, in particular about M. Theresa. One need not be Catholic (I'm not, far from it) to disdain the shallow pretensions of the likes of Ms. Jacoby (her photograph says all that's need of her).

America is awash with pseudo-intellectuals. We're now simply aware of another in Jacoby.

Wow, your nuts and an angry woman- Scary! Good luck with all that.

Scott Douglas,

"The fact that no evidence for a jesus has ever been found speaks volumes"

Umm...I heard about something called the resurrection. Do you think that's why there is no physical evidence for Jesus?

"Yet there is not a single word written about a man who was walking on water, who was curing blind people, who was raising people from the dead, who was cursing fig trees, who was feeding thousands from a loaf of bread, who was meeting with kings, who was preaching to thousands, who was overturning the tables of the money changers in the Temple, who was crucified and then bodily resurrected into the sky with "hundreds of witnesses" supposedly watching"

Not a single word written about Jesus walking on water and the such?? Have you ever heard of something called the Bible?

"Yet not a single, solitary reference to this and not a single thing he did documented while he was alive, not a word written by him or his apostles or his family or his followers or the people he healed or the courts or the kings"

Dude, are you aware that James and Jude both wrote a book that is in the Bible. They are Jesus' brothers. Maybe you've heard of Peter as well. He was an apostle. He happened to write a few lines as well.

Sorry Scott, your argument is pretty much flawed due to the fact that there are several writings about Jesus. Even Pontius Pilate wrote about Jesus. To say Jesus never even existed is to deny historical fact. Of course you can deny all the miracles and the such, but it's a pretty bad argument to say that He never existed. I suppose Alexander the Great didn't exist either right? Or maybe Henry VIII never existed. Who knows, maybe all we can go on is the written account of their existences due to the fact that camcorders weren't invented yet, huh?

"If the world hated me it will hate you." As Christ said, so this forum proves. It is no surprise that many people would follow Jacoby's brutal attack on an impoverished nun who spent her life helping others, by launching attacks of their own. Christ said his believers would be punished for his name's sake, and it has always been so. He also taught us to "bless those that curse you," so to all on this forum that choose to spread venom about God's children I say bless you, you have our prayers.

I think describing the publication of these letters as a "shameless publicity ploy to foster her candidacy for sainthood" is misguided at best, mean-spirited at worst. The Church does not require public approval to bestow sainthood on anyone. This isn't "American Idol".

Describing Time's piece as "reverential and sanctimonious", however, is something I can agree on. I was surprised that an "objective" news source gave such an adoring tone to the article while basically glossing over valid viewpoints from skeptics and athiests.

Jihadist

Hi there. I'm not sure I understand what you are asking...
I've seen Niebuhr's name somewhere,but
I don't know anything about him.And I can't see how
doubt would be anything but anathema to religion.
Your comments about militant atheism and politboro
atheists,and godless hordes threatening your religious freedom,
are amusing, you were joking of course.
Nobody can take your faith away Jihad.You know that.
Doubt might,if you opened the door to it;but like
religious people everywhere,you're not about to do that.
So be happy anyway.
bye4now..Yoyo.

Mike K:

Have you not been reading these posts? All of the topics you brought up have been addressed, more than once. No one is going to write an article as long as Jacoby's in response in this thread; this is a place for comments, not articles. Some of the posters here have gotten very specific and longer than others, but not everyone has as much time to put into a retort as Jacoby had to create her masterpiece. And frankly, not everyone believes she deserves the time spent, after such an attack. Anyone who wants to know all of the good that MT did can easily find out about it. Some people, myself included, have posted some of the information here already. It is in complete opposition to what Jacoby will have you believe.

This article by Jacoby was over the top, even for her, as can be seen by the sheer volume of postings against her article. Her hatred for all things religious becomes more and more obvious with every article she writes for On Faith. Opposing views are always good and welcome, not hate-filled diatribes.

Dear Editor of "On faith" I began reading this article in hopes of finding an intelligent arena where true issues of faith are discussed by people who feel passionately about faith. Instead, I am deeply disappointed that you have chosen to highlight the commentary of a polemicist in lieu of a genuine opinion on the matter. I can only attribute this choice as a lame and all-to-common ploy to replace controversy with genuine discussion. The nature of this commentary, as well as your choice to give it prominence leads me terribly dissatisfied. I will not give the Post my business anymore and hope others can see through this charade.

Ms. Jacoby's rant illustrates the point that the last politically-correct form of prejudice is anti-Catholicism.

Thank you for so ably articulating this point of view about MT. This column was a wonderful break from all the saccharine worship of this vulture. MT fed on the pain of others. Whatever good her mission may have done, was an incidental effect for her. I believe that her opposition to birth control, in the face of the millions starving in the world, ensured that her legacy is more one of harm than good.

To Karen:
If you speak with cliches, you are a cliche.
How about sustaining your argument. How was Mother Teresa a problem?

To Julee Blake:
It appears, from your statement, that you have studied and analyzed the work of Mother Teresa in a lot more detail than I as a casual reader has, so, could you please enlighten me as to how her "mission" was a disgrace to all the "truly compassionate" in the world? And if you would, could you define her "mission" and the meaning of "truly compassionate"?

I can't believe how vicious this character attack was. Total ad hominem nonsense. (As if Charles Keating's donations to Catholic charities sullies the cause itself--total cheap shot.) You've revealed yourself as an ideologue, not a critic.

MIKE: "Teresa's actions (stance against birth control & abortion in light of their repercussions on Calcutta, less than sufficient health care, focus on accepting pain instead of alleviating it) coupled with her suspect motivations (decades of "darkness" and serious doubt of the existence of her god), invite a critique such as Susan's."

Well then, why doesn't Susan just attack some other Catholics instead. Her problem is not with Mother Teresa it is with Catholicism. Could it be that the bold Miss Jacoby is simply attacking Teresa because it gains her publicity? I'm not that cynical.

This is ridiculous. People are attacking a woman who devoted her life to helping the poor.

If you don't like the way she did it, or why she did it, or the baggage she brought with her, then why don't you just pack up their bags, sell your valuables, move to Calcutta and devote your life to helping the poor.

Nobody is stopping Hitchens, Jacoby or any of these other characters from emulating Teresa's behaviours while promoting the use of contraceptives, the utilisation of abortion and social change.

I don't understand why supporters of abortion are defensive about the inherent violence: the mother is killing her own child. How can you intellectually dispute that? Your defense of abortion would be much stronger if you admitted the truth of the act - instead of pretending that it's non-violent. What else could it possibly be? Fun for the mother? For the baby? Peaceful? Non-invasive? Mostly, Jacoby sounds naive.

We are horrified and outraged by the cruelty towards dogs in the Vick case - but we toss off abortion casually and thoughtlessly.

Saddest of all are my friends in their 40's who had abortions in their 20's, thinking nothing of it, and then have babies and are horrified by their past acts, or distraught by their inability to conceive later in life.

Thank you for so ably articulating a point of view which I've long held. I've long felt MT was like a vulture, basking in the pain of others.

I appreciate the honesty, both emotionally and intellectually. Certainly the merits of MT's works and theological positions are open for debate. Certainly MT's letters bring to light many unanswered questions that are difficult for all believers in God. However, it is unbecoming of On Faith for the author to publish such a hateful tirade. This would be considered inappropriate if directed at any other religion or Christian denomination. Why is it tolerated here? Next time please vent in your journal and then rewrite something appropriate for ethical public discourse.

Curious: "So, instead of feeding the poor, she should have handed them some condoms?" By her own admission, Mother Teresa never fed any poor people or gave them any other help. When she was interviewed on "60 Minutes" some years ago, Mike Wallace asked her why she did nothing to meet the physical needs of the dying poor: food, shelter, medical care. Her response, barked severely: "I am not a social worker!" Her supporters apparently would rather believe her extremely effective self-publicity than her own words. Feed the poor? No, she was interested only in harvesting their souls for the God in which she so famously did not believe, thus demonstrating her sainthood. Right on, Susan!

The fact that no evidence for a jesus has ever been found speaks volumes.

The big mistake? Jesus never wrote anything down and didn't have the foresight to have his words saved for posterity.

It was a BIG mistake because he left it to primitive shepherds to write down third and fourth accounts of his words which are incredibly unreliable.

He made a HUGE mistake in performing silly magic tricks when he could have empowered and united the world for the good of humanity.

But he just didn't have the brains to understand that the written word is very powerful indeed.

The fact that the bible is still the number one best seller in spite of it being fables is a testament to that.

Can you imagine how much more powerful it would be if it contained the actual words of christ and not hearsay?

But I digress.

There were many records kept at the time of jesus's life.

Many people were literate.

Yet there is not a single word written about a man who was walking on water, who was curing blind people, who was raising people from the dead, who was cursing fig trees, who was feeding thousands from a loaf of bread, who was meeting with kings, who was preaching to thousands, who was overturning the tables of the money changers in the Temple, who was crucified and then bodily resurrected into the sky with "hundreds of witnesses" supposedly watching.

Yet not a single, solitary reference to this and not a single thing he did documented while he was alive, not a word written by him or his apostles or his family or his followers or the people he healed or the courts or the kings.

Nothing.

At all.

Seems very strange to do all that and still not have a single bit of evidence that you ever lived.

It's interesting that your god or one of his many followers wouldn't have made any provisions at all for the safe keeping of something - anything related to jesus.

Yet, there is nothing.

"Susan Jacoby the anti-religious liberal ..."

Well if you discount Susan's opinion because she's "liberal" how do discount Hitchens' opinions? He's an unabashed conservative.

"So, instead of feeding the poor, she should have handed them some condoms?"

She could not have done both? Of course condoms were against her "religion" but what about education, micro-loans, housing and sanitation? What about pain relief for the dying? If she really did have $100 million, she could have provided some of these things in addition to food, water and hugs.

"Mother Teresa started a religious order that sought to give the poorest of the poor a death with dignity."

But not, apparently, without pain. She seems to have really been in love with pain.

"here's a case where belief is a good thing. It took a normal human being and turned her into someone who tried to do something good. Dedicated her life to it, in fact, and that's something that should be honored."

Ah, but her letters show she did NOT believe. She apparently HOPED her suffering would lead to belief, but it seems only to have led to belief in suffering. She should have been a Buddhist, as they try to accept and deal with suffering rather than TRYING to suffer in order to glorify it.

"... you have NO RIGHT TO JUDGE." Yeah? Well neither do you, pal, yet you attack atheists. What's the difference, pray tell?

"The Lord sent Teresa and not Susan to comfort, you have to aknowledge His love in this choice."

No, an atheist does NOT have to acknowledge that "the Lord" sent anyone anywhere. Duh.

"Susan and all you who MUST have sex without proper protection to save the unwanted baby from your killing fields get fixed."

Uh, the Catholic Church does not permit "protection."

"a scathing article attacking Mother Teresa (arguably one of the more beloved figures of Catholicism)..."

I think MT's status as a "beloved figure of Catholicism" is what makes her a legitimate target of criticism. Examining a cult through the actions of one of its despised figures (say, Hitler) is just a cheap shot.

"the vitriol that often accompanies their arguments does nothing for the cause of atheism in my opinion ..."

This is a bit of a good point, but when one is as despised as atheists are, a bit of defensive vitriol is to be expected. The hate started on the religious side, not on the atheist side.

"[Hitchins} fails to read the entire Bible in its historical and/or cultural context ..."

As do, unfortunately, most practicing American Christians, who believe in the literal truth of the Bible, and who therefore think the world was created 6,000 years ago. I commend anyone who reads the Bible in its historical and/or cultural context, but rationality in this country is being undermined by the massive growth in numbers of those who read it otherwise.

"Mother Teresa would have tended to your needs with no benefit to her."

I personally would rather be tended to by someone who trys to eleviate suffering through pain medication. Someone like Hospice. Please, PLEASE keep MT's followers away from me when I'm dying, if they truly follow her practices.

"I would have been surprised if Mother Teresa had NOT had a crisis of faith from time to time."

But are you surprised that she had a continuing, unalieviated crisis of faith?

"Idiot!"

Back at ya!

Read online the devastating expose of Mother Theresa that fleshes out Hitchen's book in much greater depth. Mother Teresa The Final Verdict By Aroup Chatterjee ( http://www.meteorbooks.com/index.html ). Mr. Chatterjee is a native Calcuttan who puts up a spirited and passionate defense of his city, which unfairly became the poster-child for urban decay and inhumanity in the West thanks to Mother Theresa and her hagiographers who were looking for a "saintly" cause to manufacture. What is even more disquieting, and a sad reflection of how colonized attitudes still persist in India, is how most Indians have bought into the myth of the saintly White woman doing God's work among the darkies. They even gave her a state funeral!

Wow, how risque! Attacting a peasant woman who devoted her life to working among the poor and suffering- way to let her have it, Jacoby.

Speaking of selfishness, how about a writer who decides to make fame for herself by attacking a deceased nun? If anyone can write with authority about narcissism it's you.

Thank you, thank you. I've long thought mother Teresa caused more harm than good, and it's nice to know I'm not the only one. Her "mission" was a disgrace to all the truly compassionate in the world. She fed on the pain of others.

Wow, how risque! Attacting a peasant woman who devoted her life to working among the poor and suffering- way to let her have, it Jacoby.

Speaking of selfishness, how about a writer who decides to make fame for herself by attacking a deceased nun? If anyone can write with authority about narcissism it's you.

Yoyo said:
"Surely,when we are talking about
the great unknown,certainty is foolish,and doubt a sensible position to take."

My sentiments also.

To Mr. Haber, understood, thanks for you context, I agree wholeheartedly.

Jacoby's pathetic essay is more likely to be studied as evidence of psychiatric disorder than the letters upon which she comments.

"Correction",

You're right, to be sure. I wasn't denying that. I guess I was speaking in more general terms about a more general subject than only reparative penances.

In suffering, who we really are does come to light. Some people, when suffering strikes, think entirely of themselves. Others forget themselves entirely and think only of others. Being faithful to a wife for better, health, and wealth is easy; being faithful to her amidst worse, sickness, and poverty - when suffering is all over the place - that shows what meddle a man is made of.

That's what I was trying to say in the quotation you cited from my earlier post. It's true, just like the point you made about reparative penance. They're just not the same thing, that's all. Thank you for making sure that everyone was clear on that point, though.

It's rather telling that of all the criticism directed towards Ms. Jacoby, nary a person addresses her actual comments.

Teresa's actions (stance against birth control & abortion in light of their repercussions on Calcutta, less than sufficient health care, focus on accepting pain instead of alleviating it) coupled with her suspect motivations (decades of "darkness" and serious doubt of the existence of her god), invite a critique such as Susan's.

Rational responses would address those issues instead of attacking Ms. Jacoby personally. I suspect that many find those issues hard to reconcile with the beautiful facade that's been built up around Teresa, hence the attacks on Susan.

To Karen:

holding dying lepers in your arms is part of the problem?

If any evidence is needed of the devil acting in humanity today comments like Karen's are all the evidence that is needed.

Ms. Jacoby: I cannot argue with anything you have said. It is rational, reasonable and seemingly correct. All I can tell you is this. You seem incensed at Mother Theresa's place in the memory of men. Fair enough. Maybe she is not a saint. There is only one way to find out.

If you really mean what you are saying, pray to God through her memory and her intercession for a miracle in your own life. Pray to God in her name and through her intercession that someone you know who needs a cure, someone you have heard about needs a life change of some sort and then see what happens. Remain faithful in your daily prayer until the situation resolves itself. Then have the courage to report to us what has happened, good or bad, true or false, divine or mundane. Pray even if you think prayer is ridiculous. If you are willing to do this and then report to us, I will respect your opinion.

So Susan,

Tell us please, what have you done to ease the suffering of impoverished people dying in the streets? Mother Theresa did a lot. Giving people dignity and compassion means something. She also inspired thousands of others to do the same - wow!

You seem to be dissatisfied that she only gave her life to ease suffering and did not solve overpopulation and whatever other social ills concern you - are you insane? Or do you fancy yourself some divine judge? It's so easy to criticize the splinter in another's eye while ignoring the plank in your own.

Frankly I don't give a crap what she wrote - she never intended for it to be made public anyway - what she *did* is what matters.

If you're not part of the solution - you're part of the problem. And Mother Theresa was definitely "part of the problem."

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated,

I have to take a reality check. With regard to Mother Teresa's faith, and how much anxiety she had, you said she would have done well if she had understood "our faith" (you meant, presumably, hers and yours) according to the best New Testament exegetes' interpretations.

Just what aspect of the Catholic faith do you think you shared with Mother Teresa, to call it "our" faith?

For that matter, is there a point in common that you share with... well, any other Catholics?

Remember, the Catholic Church isn't a club for any inquiring individuals as the Unitarians are (and it is a good thing for Unitarians to be). We are a people gathered together sharing a PARTICULAR set of beliefs, ways of living, and ways of worshipping - ways handed down to us by our forebears. We are free to forego them, and thus the Church and Her faith, but they are no more ours to change than the Earth is. Membership isn't gained by birth, but by baptism; it isn't maintained by holding onto an identity-label, but by communion and confession as prescribed by the rules that govern membership.

Mr. Haber wrote: "For a Christian, the suffering one endures is an opportunity to be purified and cleansed, for one's deepest motivations, hidden even from one's self, to come to light."

Suffering can be a form of reparation.

Reparation being the penance one does to correct a wrong (a sin). For example if I stole $10 from you, not only should I repent of my sin, ask forgiveness, and determine not to repeat it again (penance), I also should make reparations by paying back the $10 plus interest.

Suffering can be a form of reparation depending on the particular sin committed. And reparations can be given for other people's sins as well.

Just wanted to be clear on that from at least the Catholic catechism.

Susan, what darkness prowls your soul to make you so bitter? I will pray to Mother Theresa to ask God to be kind to you and that you may some day find contentment and the happiness you seem to be so lacking in.

Metriscu

Even St Augustine saw doubt as a virtue,
here he's quoted from "Doubt:a History'
by Jennifer Michael Hecht. PP201.

Regarding the doubter...
"...even if he doubts,he lives;
if he doubts,he remembers why he is doubting;
if he doubts,he has a will to be certain;
if he doubts,he thinks;
if he doubts,he knows he does not know;
if he doubts,he judges he ought not to give a hasty assent."

I'm not really saying that Mother T was virtuous,
just that doubt is. Surely,when we are talking about
the great unknown,certainty is foolish,and doubt a sensible position to take.
The 9/11 suicide bombers would still be alive
if they had doubted the existence of Allah and
Paradise,and the 72 celestial virgins,that they
were promised for blowing up infidels.
From the outside looking in,we can see how they
were tricked.
If only they had doubted what they were told,the WTC
would still be there,the 3000 dead would still be alive,
and we wouldn't be in Iraq.

What a dreadful understanding of faith Susan Jacoby displays. There can be no doubt without faith. These 'dark nights of the soul' will sound familiar to any believer, but what makes Mother Theresa more admirable than most is that she did not allow those doubts to affect her work. You can't expect the likes of Jacoby to understand that given that her ilk tend to portray theists as unquestioning morons.

Anybody who quotes Christopher Hitchens' work in support of their argument clearly has a pretty low standards. And as for Theresa's supposed supposed self obsession, one would do well do note that the subject of these letters was Theresa! They were part of her counselling. I dare say that if you judge a person based on the transcripts of their therapy session, you'd find that it is quite common to discussion one's self in that context.

Whether Mother Teresa makes it to sainthood or not is irrevelant to me as an atheist, that is for the Catholics and the believers to ponder and decide. Why does this bother this woman, Susan Jacoby, is beyond me. This is the most vulgar attack perpetrated on a person that, as far as I know, has done nothing to deserve it. To put it on the same vulgar terms, so that Jacoby can understand it, it is my belief that Jacoby wrote this garbage while she was having a bad case of cramps from her bloody period. Her argument is so flawed it will take very little effort to rebuff but a long time and space to write so that she can understand it. But lets look at a couple of snippets.

"Teresa raised millions from right-wing Catholic donors (including Charles Keating, who robbed thousands of his fellow Americans in the savings and loan scandals of the early 1990s). Her "Home for the Dying" in Calcutta provided no modern medical care--not even modern painkillers--for the terminally ill. " Indeed Jacoby. She must have spent this money in her luxury homes, yatchs, and hair saloons like the ones you frequent? So a thief donated money to her causes and she used them on herself, I assume that is why you are so upset? And how much money and time have you spent with these needy people, Jacoby?

"Teresa never showed any concern, in India or elsewhere, about the root causes of poverty--including lack of education, corrupt dictatorships, inequitable distribution of wealth, bigotry against social, ethnic, or religious underclasses, and contempt for women." In other words she was not a superwoman. I assume all those grants that you have received have been spent on those causes.

Let me paraphase one more of your points: "An irrational person--let us say, for the sake of argument, someone [Jacoby] dedicated to becoming a hater who suffers for eternity--refuses to acknowledge that there may be no good reasons for her doubts. And she may, like Jacoby, redouble her efforts to present a hateful and smiling face to the world--to show herself in public as the embodiment of a hate she does not experience in private."

What is it, Jacoby? Jealousy? Are you consumed with envy of the love most people have for Mother Teresa? I hope that people do not see you as the embodiment of an atheist, a true atheist does not attack believers. Everyone is a free thinker, unfortunately, as you proved on this article, not everyone is a rational free thinker.

ITS ALL ABOUT HER ????????

PERHAPS THE BEST WAY FOR ONE TO TRY AND 'GET OUT OF ONE'S SELF' IS BY SERVICE TO OTHERS.

MY UNCLE WAS A PROTESTANT MINISTER WHO WAS IN THE US ARMY IN GERMANY IN WWII AND WHO WAS WITH THE FORCES THAT LIBERATED ONE OF THE INFAMOUS GERMAN DEATH CAMPS. WHAT HE SAW THERE WAS VERY UNSETTLING TO HIM AND AFTER RETURNING HOME, HE DID WHAT WAS PERHAPS THEN THE UNTHINKABLE FOR A MINISTER AND DIVORCED HIS WIFE. WHILE HE BELIEVED THAT HE HAD JUST CAUSE TO DO SO, HE FELT SAID ACTION ALSO REQUIRED THAT HE LEAVE THE MINISTRY, WHICH HE DID AND THEN HE REMARRIED AFTERWARDS.

WHAT WERE HIS DOUBTS OF GOD, INDEED, WHAT ARE YOURS AND MINE, OR IS IT MERELY AN ISSUE OF DEFINING GOD -- FOR SURELY THERE ARE 'HIGHER POWERS' -- JUST ASK YOUR BOSS.

PERHAPS MOTHER TERESSA WAS FINALLY BLESSED WITH THE ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST, WHICH FOR ALL BELIEVERS SURELY HOPEFULLY OCCURS AT THE MOMENT OF DEATH, IF NOT BEFORE HAND. WHILE THIS 'SECOND COMING' IS A PERSONAL AND PERHAPS PRIVATE EXPERIENCE A LIFE LONG STRUGGLE WITH REALITIES IN THIS WORLD DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT DOES NOT OCCUR.

WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT !!!

When someone launches an attack like Susan's, it's immediately suspect. One starts to wonder about the attacker, why do they feel it necessary to demean and detract with such energy? The answer is seldom in the object of attack. Susan dismisses a person whose lifetime accomplishments far exceed her own, and displays a remarkable smallness and lack of generosity. She seems to be projecting her own smallness and vanity into the object of her attack. As I read her comments I was not convinced of Mother Teresa's flawed character, but of the authors.

I find MT's doubts to be much more palatable than Susan Jacoby's hateful, bitter, narrow-minded, raging certainty.

Wow! Lots of feedback for Ms. Jacoby's article. Good, good. I am especially grateful toward atheists, nonbelievers, and non-Catholics of good will who write against Ms. Jacoby's "petty meanness" to use one commentator's words.

I only read about the first half of the posts because, well, there are a lot them. One thing I would like to add, that I don't think has already been said is this:

Ms. Jacoby is CORRECT to say that Mother "Teresa's true mission seems to have been the glorification of suffering." Suffering, if you believe the philosophy underlying Star Wars, is the greatest possible evil. Not so for a Christian, not so.

For a Christian, the suffering of a man two thousand years ago is what makes salvation possible.

For a Christian, the suffering one endures is an opportunity to be purified and cleansed, for one's deepest motivations, hidden even from one's self, to come to light.

For a Christian, suffering is the moment of trial at which one can show one's true colors, the moment at which those truly and humbly obedient to God's will are revealed, as are those who were opportunistic, hypocritical, or playing mindgames with themselves.

For a Christian, the suffering one experiences is a means of union with God, who himself suffered in the person of Jesus Christ.

For a Christian, suffering is not the greatest imaginable evil, but rather a very powerful tool. It is not an end-in-itself, nor is it our hope or joy - it is just a reality. We can't leave it, but we can take it and use it for good.

On that note, Mother Teresa wasn't chiefly interested in "the poor". That's an "issue" and issues are very easy to address. But people? People are much harder to look square in the eye. Mother Teresa cared about persons, especially persons that had nobody else to care about them.

How many of us are willing or able to pass by beggars on the street every day to our way to work in nice, air-conditioned buildings? How many of us will give a few dollars to help "root out poverty"? But how many of us will look a beggar in the eye and say, "I don't care about you"? It's easy to hide behind "caring about issues" so that one doesn't have to care about persons. Mother Teresa went straight for the persons who were so disgusting and vile that everyone else simply wished they did not exist (oh, how poor people sully the view from my highrise! what are they thinking!?). She went right for them and picked them up WITH HER OWN BARE HANDS, puss and all.

I wonder if Susan Jacoby or likeminded critics of Blessed Teresa have ever done that. If they have, then they can speak confidently about which is harder and more important - persons or issues.

If they haven't, then they are hypocrites.

Mike k wrote:

"An interesting assertation, as she, in her words, seriouisly doubted the existence of such a thing. Maybe her "mask" (her word) fooled you."

Yes, she had moments of doubt in her life, as everyone does. Especially those living amid the suffering that she did on a daily basis. But as you can see from her life, she did not walk away from her faith; she did not say "I have come to the conclusion that there is no God." Doubt and questioning is normal, and leads people to seek a deeper understanding of their faith.

When someone launches an attack like Susan's, it's immediately suspect. One starts to wonder about the attacker, why do they feel it necessary to demean and detract with such energy? The answer is seldom in the object of attack. Susan dismisses a person whose lifetime accomplishments far exceed her own, and displays a remarkable smallness and lack of generosity. She seems to be projecting her own smallness and vanity into the object of her attack. As I read her comments I was not convinced of Mother Teresa's flawed character, but of the authors.

To: Are you KIDDING?!

Maybe Elizabeth has FAITH that Mother Theresa was OK with Diana's reproductive choices. Maybe she just knows in her soul that Princess Di was on the pill and can't explain how or why she knows this. But you should believe her because she has FAITH that what she says is true.

C.H.R.I.S.T.I.A.N.S: Cocky, Hateful, Righteous, Intolerant, Stupid, Totally Ignorant, Arrogant, Narcissistic Sinners.

J.E.W.S.: Just Everything We Seek (read the Talmud someday to see why)

M.U.S.L.I.M.S.: My Ultimate Statement Lies In My Suicide.

I haven't thought of a good one yet for Buddhists (my belief) or Hindus, but in the interest of fairness, I'm listening.

When someone launches an attack like Susan's, it's immediately suspect. One starts to wonder about the attacker, whey do they feel it necessary to demean and detract with such energy? The answer is seldom in the object of attack. Susan dismisses a person whose lifetime accomplishments far exceed her own, and displays a remarkable smallness and lack of generosity. She seems to be projecting her own smallness and vanity into the object of her attack. As I read her comments I was not convinced of Mother Teresa's flawed character, but of the authors.

Ms. Jacoby's diatribe against a deceased individual who gave her life to the poor and to her religion seem a little harsh. Sounds like Ms. Jacoby finds it hard to understand why someone would spend their life helping the poor and living in the conditions Mother Teresa endured. Despite the conditions and problems Mother Teresa faced her devotion and faith brought much attention to the plight of the poor in India. However, I am sure that many will always remember Mother Teresa for her contributions and not the hateful article authored by Ms. Jacoby or the book she published. Maybe it is all just about Ms Jacoby. After all our society today seems to thrive on being controversial and hateful.

You can't make fun of Jews? Since when? You mean all those Jew jokes made by Seinfeld, Crystal, Youngman, Mason, etc. didn't really occur?

Wow, when I saw Susan's picture, I said to myself that looks like a lost lonely, creepy person. After I read that article filled with hatred for a woman who did so much good in her life, my thoughts about Susan were confirmed. Susan, you need serious help.

I would like to ask Ms. Jacoby what she has done in her life that even remotely compares to any of selfless acts of Mother Teresa? I dare say that any person who has put a band-aid on a poor person's sore, which is a completely ridulous characterization, has done more with their life then Ms. Jacoby ever has.

To: Freestinker

Those may be all metaphorical in in your minds' eye, but that doesn't make it so.

Well said. As an ex-Christian, if ever there were a religion more concerned with inflating already over-inflated egos, modern American Christianity is it. Christians would, for the most part, be more honest if they just decided to worship themselves and quit pretending to be interested in God.

Feedback for Russell D:

Russell said:
If you have God in your heart, or are full of other kinds of love, and you truly want to help, then help. Find a way to help.
Don't help because it's gonna get you into heaven. Help because it's the right thing to do.

That's a great statement. I take the "or" part more than the God in your heart part. It's far more charitable to give because you think it's the right thing to do than to give because you believe an invisible, magical being is watching and judging you.

Did you ever notice that the most hateful, spiteful posts in this column are usually from the followers of Jesus? Patrick is a good example. Just because someone doesn't agree with you is no need to say they need help or medication. Present your points and let your reason and logic work.

I am unaware of what either Ms. Jacoby or Mr. Hitchens, both so contemptuous of Mother Theresa's mission to help the poor in her way, have done to help the poor in their way. Or is simply being a highly-compensated writer and "public intellectual" solidarity enough with the world's least fortunate citizens?

Anonymous,

In this country you are free to make fun of anyone you care to.

Have you not seen the movie Borat? Sheesh.

It is interesting...your view. Have you never doubted your ability to succeed in the path laid out before you? Have you ever written a letter to someone about yourself/your thoughts/your beliefs and spoke in third person? You make it seem as if she was incorrect to ask questions regarding her own soul as so many people came to her requesting answers... Of course not. Mother Teresa was someone who did more than the best of us who serve only if it benefits ourselves, our companies or our pockets. Hindsight is always 20/20 and I hope, if you should ever find yourself being posthumously studied that whomever writes an opinion will be much more kind and realistic.

Are you kidding? Christ himself had doubts!

Fly On The Wall,

Given that heaven, the pearly gates, (and maybe even Jesus) are indeed merely "metaphorical", that would be most extraordinary! And Susan Jacoby would also be especially entertained by that!

it is a revealing insight into ms jacoby that she looked into the mirror of mother teresa's soul and all she saw was her own narcissism.

by the way, its not narcissm, but narcissism-

it is a revealing insight into ms jacoby that she looked into the mirror of mother teresa's soul and all she saw was her won narcissism.

by the way, its not narcissm, but narcissism-

Someone states "It would be fine to display a cartoon that made fun of Catholics, Jesus, or pretty much any other Christian denomination, but thou shall not speak ill or with humor about Muslims."

Dont forget the Jews! (like Jacoby)

You cannot make fun of or criticize Jews or Muslims, only Christians. That is the golden rule of political correctness.

Curious stated: "Her purpose was not to bring them to God, but to show them God's love."

An interesting assertation, as she, in her words, seriouisly doubted the existence of such a thing. Maybe her "mask" (her word) fooled you.

Amazing depth of narcissism displayed
By the querulous pretenders words
Seeking to distance you and me
When all that you see is the mirror in me

Deeds are done everlasting be
Words linger ‘a life or three’
Secular bees a hive not
Whole is three, bees, drones and queen me

Mother T requires thee
As darkness needs the light
Love and hate berate the night
An animal chorus howls in delight

Intention measures the deed
Be it saint or ‘secularhood’ creed
Values and worth precede and follow
One’s deeds unless hollow

I know I usually agree with Susan, but in this case, I would rather say nothing at all.

True, Mother Theresa led a life of service.
Service towards others is the highest calling, whether you believe God called you, or if you just feel that it is what you should do.

But here's a thought. You don't have to endure pain and suffering to acheive enlightenment. Nor do you have to do it to get closer to God.

I may not be the best person to say this, but I would like some feedback.

If you have God in your heart, or are full of other kinds of love, and you truly want to help, then help. Find a way to help.
Don't help because it's gonna get you into heaven. Help because it's the right thing to do.

A life of pverty is allfine and good, but youcan achieve spiritual greatness without living in the gutter your whole life.

Don't take that to mean I am for becoming a millionaire from it, because it urks me to see how pastors are much more well off money wise than the flock they preach to every Sunday. That gets my boxer-briefs in a bunch.

That's just my take. Let me know what you think.
Thanks.

Why is it that Mother Teresa, who can live a life of service to the poor, would still be denied a leadership role in any church?

Doesn't all this dogma, with no support from reason, seem so......1st century?

Let's see, the only reason for sex is the procreation of children, therefore, anyone having sex must do so without birth control. Eating a biscuit at communion will transform it into flesh. And women shall hold no leadership / teaching positions within the church.

In a world of 6.6 billion people, when half don't have reliable clean water, maybe preventing an unwanted pregnancy is better. Or maybe women can be leaders after all. I would not want to be affiliated with an organization that limits your responsibilities based solely on gender.

Bravo! A wonderfully acerbic commentary, a well-placed lancet puncturing a very overstretched balloon. All this propagandizing and log-rolling in favor of Mother Theresa smacks of politics. What's next,. Saint Theresa International Airport?

Here's another Christian who would like to thank the atheists here for their criticism of Jacoby's disgusting character assassination of Mother Teresa.

"Posted on August 29, 2007 14:17

Suzanne:
Susan, I hope you get some help. You clearly need some medication."

That's even worse than the article--mark of the true blog troll. She sounds like a balanced enough Maureen Dowd wannabe to me. Problem is 'It Needs WORK' as the song in 'City of Angels' says it. The Post should be ashamed of publishing something that is not even worthy of the NEW YORK POST. Hire some WRITERS! not little Helen Gurley Brown/Gloria Steinem spin-offs.

Would you rather have 10,000 Mother Teresa's coming into the world tomorrow, or 10,000 Jacoby's?

Seriously, all this attention Jacoby is getting isn't worthy of the electrons it's using up.

Well done Ms. Jacoby. As one born and raised in the RC faith, I believe you have it exactly right, particularly as to the nonsense of sainthood.

David Jewell -- Philadelphia

Idiot!

So Mother Teresa was able to live a life of charity for its own sake, rather than just as a bribe to buy her way into heaven, and this somehow makes her a worse person? Instead, she persisted in doing what she thought was right, despite her self-doubts. In my mind, this qualifies her even more to sainthood -- or the closest we can come to sainthood on this earth.

By the way, it's pretty impressive when a writer can dismiss both Freudian psychology and the Roman Catholic Church in a single sentence. Not to mention dismissing Mother Teresa's life's work as "putting band-aids on sores." What a pompous, self-centered article...

So Mother Teresa was able to live a life of charity for its own sake, rather than just as a bribe to buy her way into heaven, and this somehow makes her a worse person? Instead, she persisted in doing what she thought was right, despite her self-doubts. In my mind, this qualifies her even more to sainthood -- or the closest we can come to sainthood on this earth.

By the way, it's pretty impressive when a writer can dismiss both Freudian psychology and the Roman Catholic Church in a single sentence. Not to mention dismissing Mother Teresa's life's work as "putting band-aids on sores." What a pompous, self-centered article...

Another point--Ms. Jacoby seems to think that the mere fact of Mother Theresa's celebrity status is proof that she is not "holy". By that argument, the following people are also not any better than Average Joe: the Dalai Lama, Pope John Paul II, and even Jesus Christ.

To lead an exemplary life is not to demonstrate that one is perfect--only that one is striving towards that perfection. ALL human beings are flawed. What separates the exceptional is their willingness to accept their flaws while simultaneously attempting to overcome them and defeat "normal" human feelings and tendencies. Eventually, someone who leads his or her life in pursuit of this goal will become known to others. People always need a hero, someone to elevate, and will happily nominate a worthy individual to that status. It has little, if anything, to do with the candidate being a publicity hound.

Brambleton -

Having read Hitchens' "god is not great" twice, I find your pseudo review of the book laughable. Your entire defense is based on the courtier's argument.

Perhaps you dislike Hitchens because he didn't offer an opinion on how many angels dance on that pin head.

Anyone who has read the book or has watched the series of debates that Hitchens held across this country during his book tour realizes that he knows the Bible in far greater detail than any of the theologians/hucksters he debated. Indeed, the theologians seem to be the ones who limit their defense of the Bible to a few worn out "good" verses and their particular opinion on the matter.

I doubt that you've actually read the book. Seems like you're parroting something you read somewhere else. If you've got your copy of GIBG handy, perhaps you can tell me what's on page 195?

Another point--Ms. Jacoby seems to think that the mere fact of Mother Theresa's celebrity status is proof that she is not "holy". By that argument, the following people are also not any better than Average Joe: the Dalai Lama, Pope John Paul II, and even Jesus Christ.

To lead an exemplary life is not to demonstrate that one is perfect--only that one is striving towards that perfection. ALL human beings are flawed. What separates the exceptional is their willingness to accept their flaws while simultaneously attempting to overcome them and defeat "normal" human feelings and tendencies. Eventually, someone who leads his or her life in pursuit of this goal will become known to others. People always need a hero, someone to elevate, and will happily nominate a worthy individual to that status. It has little, if anything, to do with the candidate being a publicity hound.

Mike K wrote:

"Although she may have provided food, water and shelter, the quality of the care was not provided had been largely criticized by respected publications. She tried to bring people closer to her god, not make them feel better."

You're wrong. You really need to check your facts more. Actually, the hallmark of all of Mother Teresa's works - from shelters for the dying to orphanages and homes for the mentally ill - was always service to the very poor; the business given by God to her and her group was simply serving the very poor with as much love and skill as they could muster. Her purpose was not to bring them to God, but to show them God's love.

To Mighty7:

I agree with you about one thing - the WP certainly is showing no spine. It would be fine to display a cartoon that made fun of Catholics, Jesus, or pretty much any other Christian denomination, but thou shall not speak ill or with humor about Muslims.

On the other hand, I believe the discussion about MT is a good one. Much as I admire Catholic charities, the baggage they attach to their service I believe, is less effective and less compasionate. Maybe I misunderstood Susan, but I interpreted her remarks to mean that MT seemed more focussed on the struggle in her service against poverty and less concerned about working to end the causes of poverty and suffering. Maybe I'm being reasonable while she is being faithful, but preventing an unwanted pregnancy seems far better to me than serving the children born as a result of unwanted pregnancy.

I also saw her speech where she stated that abortion is the single greatest evil in the world. Here's a question to think about.

Medical science estimates that 15-25% of all pregnancies end in a miscarrage -- the vast majority of these before the mother even realizes she was pregnant. Does that mean that God is causing these unintentional abortions? Does that mean God favors abortion?

Susan, I hope you get some help. You clearly need some medication.

Jack,

Oh where did I bring up Father Ray Brown on this thread? Previous thread yes but not this one. And where, oh where did you find the information concerning the IQ's of the Gospel authors?

And by the way, the lack of attestations and the differences in publication dates of NT scriptures are the major reasons for the establishment of the Jesus Seminar and the successful analyses of the NT by many contemporary NT exegetes.

A synopsis:

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations and has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists)via the NT and related documents and archeology have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest were embellishments (e.g. miracles, healing- to stay on topic, and otherwise)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed, plagiarized and/or improved from those that came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the OT and John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, were founders of Christ-based religions who also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus for an analysis of Jesus' life to include his illiteracy.

Your statement "Since I never had a high opinion of Mother Teresa in the first place.." says it all. Here's a woman who spent most of her life in places you wouldn't have the guts to even walk through. She's doing work that is not glamorous at all and not even recognized for the most part. Many days are the same... nothing but the grudgingly heavy work that needs to be done with little or no progress to show for it.

It takes unusual character to persevere in that kind of environment. Character I doubt you have, Ms. Jacoby.

It's not like it's a flaw in you, I just think you've never had a really tough day in your life. I'm not talking about Loss of a Parent here or any of those happenings that are common to us all, but about the work you've been tasked with being the hardest kind and you're asked to do it with little or no resources. I'm talking about working in an arena where hope is nowhere to be found.

I would have been surprised if Mother Teresa had NOT had a crisis of faith from time to time.

I've worked around abused children for a time as a board member to a children's receiving home. When you see a severely emotionally and psychologically traumatized child whose life is compromised to the point of NEVER being normal again, you tend to think about why God would let this happen to them. Well, God doens't LET it happen... someone made it happen with the Free Will God gave them to do good or evil as they saw fit. He decided not to be the Chessmaster that day, and let the world alone to develop and change as it will. I mean, if God blesses one and curses the other, does He not take away their Free Will when He does that?

I think that in the depths of her at times hopeless situation, Mother Teresa despaired of ever again seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. She was human and frail just like the rest of us. But then, she never claimed to be anything but that, did she?

I also think that sainthood is the last thing Mother Teresa would have wanted for herself. It doesn't fit her character nor her personality.

I suggest you reread the new testament portion of the bible. You'll find Jesus spent most of His time with the same kind of people Mother Teresa sought to help and comfort. Since I suspect you have spent zero time with these folks, I believe your opinion of her is not solidly based. Research in this area is no substitute for experience. You can't smell people helplessly laying in their own excrement over the Internet.

Your thoughts on Teresa are certainly interesting and thought-provoking, but I do have to say I think that you mischaracterize the Catholic practice of Sainthood. Catholic Saints are supposed to be examples of human beings who led good lives, even though those lives were flawed, and people do ask their special help sometimes in praying, when they feel a special connection to a particular Saint's story. But the communion of saints does not refer to those Saints who have been canonized by the Church-- it refers to all the dead, and any of these souls can be asked for help in the same way that Saints are, and in the same way that living humans are. It's a misconception that Saints have a special status or pull with God.

It is not surprising that the self-avowed freethinker Susan Jacoby, like the self-avowed militant atheist Christopher Hitchens, can find nothing good to write about Mother Theresa. Self-doubt about the existence of God or the reality of the love of Christ has been prevalent in the lives of deeply religious persons throughout history. Faith would be unnecessary in a world of metaphysical certainty. That this is unknown -- or offhandedly not admitted by the Jacobys and Hitchens of this world, and viciously misconstrued as "hypocracy" -- is not only not surprising; it is willful and self-imposed ignorance -- historically unscientific, and anything but "enlightened".

Theresa accepted money from persons unfashionable in "enlightened" circles, such as Charles Keating and Papa Doc Duvalier. She was not concerned about -- and did not pass judgment on -- their political or even ethical behaviour -- another breach with liberal orthodoxy, but one which Ms. Jacoby ought to recognize as proper restrain for a religious person, not "hypocracy", "masochism" or "narcissm".

Thanks for this excellent article. Egotism and pain-worship go a long way in the community concerned with sainthood, so I doubt your writing will go far with them. For the rest of us, though, I'm really glad to have someone sticking up for kindness and rationality. There's a great quote by Orwell: "Many human beings genuinelly never want to be saints, and it seems doubtful that many saints ever felt temptation to be human beings."

And another thing...

In case everyone hasn't noticed, Hitchens' whole schtick is to take the argument that seems unwinnable or unpopular and try to win with it. He is addicted to his own wit and ability to reason the unreasonable. He relishes being in the spotlight of controversy and has made a nice living doing it. I think that he is a tremendous writer and thinker but if you sat next to him on a plane he would take the opposite side of any point that came up and out argue you, to his satisfaction.

Haven't you known someone like that, but without the tremendous grasp of the English language? They're just plain annoying when they can't formulate such a highly prosaic response, as Hitchens can. He is a boo-bird, plain and simple. A contrarian, to a tee. And he can do it all hungover every day (this doubtless adds to his self-satisfaction).

Think about it, he wrote a book criticizing Mother Theresa. I would imagine on a bet with a mate at a pub for a pint.

Those that dare to defame Mother Theresa’s Faith put themselves in the place of God by declaring the motives of this courageous, self giving, nun’s life of ministry, healing and hope to the marginalized, and the continuation of that mission through her Missionaries of Charity, irrelevant. They had better have a better account of the works performed because of their Faith when they are required to tell the story of their life.
St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 18, said it best… “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”

Those that dare to defame Mother Theresa’s Faith put themselves in the place of God by declaring the motives of this courageous, self giving, nun’s life of ministry, healing and hope to the marginalized, and the continuation of that mission through her Missionaries of Charity, irrelevant. They had better have a better account of the works performed because of their Faith when they are required to tell the story of their life.
St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 18, said it best… “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”

This article only proves to me moderates like myself are surrounded by radical bafoons in both the left and the right. I swear, there is no middle ground anymore..You are either a radical religious brain-washed drone or some hateful bitter and angry atheist.

Interestingly enough, JUST yesterday the Washinton Post blocked the publishing of cartoons that make fun of radical Islam and that were by all accounts 1.000 milder than the pile of tripe Mr. Jacobs wrote here. Like Inspector Cluseau used to say: "Something smells fishy in Denmark"

Because, you know, it is soooo much easier to write a hareful article about a long dead nun than something really meaningful about the current religious situation. I mean, this article at this particualer time feels to me like the WP is full of cowards, Mrs. Jacobs being one of them.

Hello?..Anyone with a spine left in WP?

After reading Susan Jacoby's thoughts on Mother Teresa, I can think of only one worthwhile action for a faithful Catholic to take: Ask Mother Teresa to pray for Susan. So great is the gulf of disbelief and misunderstanding on Susan's part that I wouldn't know where to begin trying to explain. Blessed Theresa, pray for her...

Ed

Ms. Jacoby's remarks only show her abysmal ignorance of all things religious. Many saints suffered what we call "The Dark Night of the Soul," notably St. John of God. Mother Teresa's mission was to help the poor and downtrodden, and Jesus died for our sins. He was not a happy-go-lucky fellow who "enjoyed making people happy." I don't know what Bible or other work Ms. Jacoby has read to come to that conclusion. Of course she has no patience with people who disagree with her and extreme admiration for those who do. Talk about arrogance! Give me a break!

'I feel sorry for you Susan. Mother Teresa would have tended to your needs with no benefit to her. I am amazed that the Washington Post and any of your grantors feel that your "writing" is professional, literary, or journalistic."

Now, that's a good point, and totally WRONG. Here is where Ms. Jacoby could have made a real case. Mother Teresa would NOT have helped prosperous people like Ms. Jacoby no matter what. In this, she is like many Socialists who, even when rich, only champion the 'most oppressed' and won't help a neighbour or friend. Frankly, I probably agree with much of Ms. Jacoby's basic ideas on this, it's just such a sloppy piece of writing that she should either go take a new course or get out of the business.

Mr Mark,

Let me dissect your precious Mr. Hitchens latest bestseller, "God is not great."

Hitchens discredits past theologians for their ignorance of modern scientific knowledge but, mysteriously, fails to note that scientists of prior generations were equally ignorant of such knowledge.

He fails to read the entire Bible in its historical and/or cultural context, resulting, in my opinion, warped and biased interpretations. He also fails to consider contemporary Christian scholarship that addresses many of his concerns. (Wouldn't want to include anything that counters his own personal viewpoint, would we?)

Hitchens also succombs to the type of generalism that you would expect from posters on these boards. He selectively examines extremist groups and then makes judgments about faith systems in general.

He overlooks any scientist that considers himself a Christian, such as Alister McGrath, who has reconciled faith and science.

Finally, and what might be considered the biggest flaw in the book, he offers an unjustifiably optimistic view of humanity. That is, evil deeds performed by religious people are atrributed to the corrupting effect of religion, and good deeds performed by religious people are credited to humanistic compassion. Interestingly, Hitchens completely skips over evil deeds performed by non-religious persons. Again, why address something that might run counter to his core argument.

The more you learn - the less you know.

Rich blessings.

To all the atheists who post here and who called Susan on her spitefulness ...

Thanks.

-- a Christian

To Marcia Martin--

Thank you for your balanced view on this post. I have to agree that many of these posts and the article they are commenting on are petty at best. Whether you agree with her motivation or not, the fact of the matter is that Mother Theresa did much more to help others than most of us ever even THINK of doing. Ms. Jacoby's tone is snide and even sanctimonious (ironic for an atheist, isn't it?), and shows she has absolutely no understanding of what it's like to deal with intense and interminable suffering on a daily basis. She is merely an armchair critic in need of life experience.

Wow...Jacoby has sunk to a new low.

On second thought, this is ground already covered by the pompous neo con, Christopher Hitchens...so Jacoby is just rehashing "controversial" statements.

Get a life Jacoby.

To all the atheists who post here and who were disgusted by Susan's sheer spitefulness ...

Thanks.

-- a Christian

Gee, doubting and suffering are so, well,
human. Given that Mother Teresa immersed
herself in the world of the difficult, the poor, the lost, and the doomed, it would
only be a real saint on earth who could or would
happily move along with full faith and joy in the Lord. And I have yet to know of any of those who didn't maybe have mental afflictions. The fact
that she kept on keeping on despite the doubt
is the miracle here. It's a lot like what counselors say about love: it's not a feeling, it's an action. When you don't know or believe
anymore, just keep loving. And she did.

Miraclestudies is probably from the Course in Miracles people. That's a very clever cult that pretends not to be a cult, but is one of the most influential of the stupid New Age programs. They have as STAR Marianne Williamson, an unintelligent preacher who has even appeared on Oprah. The text is claimed to have been the Voice of Christ as taken down by one dead Helen Schucman, ex-atheistic Columbia professor and buddy of Edgar Cayce or his progeny. I know the book well, and it's a sanctimonious mess that a lot of social dropouts use.

To Curious and Chris R in Denver and Jay:
Curious:
You say, So, instead of feeding the poor, she should have handed them some condoms?

I think your example is a good one. The Catholic Church's prohibition against birth control is one good example. Compare Catholic charities and Doctors Without Borders. Both groups are based on the idea that people need to help other people.

Catholic Charities attaches strings to their charity and because of that they are far less effective and hence far less compassionate. Even if they have hundreds of people, tirelessly working 12 hours a day, helping people stricken with HIV; a little more reason, combined with their charity would lesson the suffering greatly.

Remember, a 25 cent condom can prevent HIV infection. Let's see, spend $10 for a year's supply of condoms to prevent HIV or $10,000 a year to preserve the life of someone infected......

And, most Africans are not Catholic and therefore don't believe in the same prohibitions on birth control. It just seems to me that Catholic Charities, by attaching strings, seeks to impose their beliefs on those they are helping. Not especially compassionate if you ask me.

Many of these same principles apply to Mother Teresa. She didn't seem to be as concerned with relieving suffering as she did with demonstrating tireless work with people in poverty. Susan's comments in this area ring true.

And the one other area that seems to not make sense to me is the idea that all of MT's doubts and the mask that she put on in public (the faithful servant) demonstrate that she was even more faithful. Okay, by that argument is someone who works at hard and has no doubt, less faithful?

This logic means that whether you have doubt or you don't have doubt, make you more faithful. Where's the logic here?

Cuddling a leper in your arms as they die, allowing them some dignity in their last moments.

And people find a way to criticize that.

Why am I not surprised.

Mother Teresa's life was one of exploring the religious experience. She cared for the poor to get closer to Christ - it wasn't an act of charity in itself. Not everyone has a mystical or religious experience. One cannot make it happen - it just does: "My lover is like a young stag looking in through the window," says the poet in the Song of Songs. That motivation for union with the divine, or with something greater than the self, underlies MT's life experience: her unending invitation. MT's beautiful response to something she experienced but couldn't understand is what makes her fascinating - and a candidate for sainthood.

"When a rational human being is confronted by evidence that contradicts his or her beliefs, then the belief must be modified. Many classically trained Freudian anlaysts, for example, no longer believe in the theory of "penis envy" that was the product of a 19th-century society in which women were considered inferior to men in every way. These analysts have altered their views to accommodate the fact that much of what Freud considered innate in women was the product of a society in which women were systematically denied all of the worldly opportunities available to men."

What an INCREDIBLY stupid paragraph. Even if you don't believe 'penis envy' is 'rational', this 'reasoning' here only claims that 'many classically trained Freudian analysts no longer believe it'. Wow! Ms. Jacoby really knows her stuff. Has she also so brilliantly mastered Lacan and Jung? It is unbelievable how this sort of column is allowed, given that is not even anywhere near up there with an Ann Taylor Fleming trash-essay on Lehrer, but is rather like something one might imagine as a 'Let's Hear Your Opinion' on some Fox Network affiliate.

Greg, I don't think Ms. Jacoby is judging Mother Teresa so much as taking her at face value based on MT's own statements and behavior.

I suspect Ms. Jacoby believes whatever someone does is their own business as long as no one else is hurt. However, the altruist should at least adhere to the doctor's oath: First do no harm. History books are full of torture and slaughter that were supposed to "help" the very people who were destroyed, and those are just the most extreme examples. Peel the onion and you may find that many acts of kindness are really just condescensions meant to bolster one's ego.

Perhaps someday a historian can determine whether or not MT did more good than harm, but today we live in an age of violent holy agendas. We as a society have a right and a duty to examine the motives and end results of people who act in God's name.

Susan,

One atheist to another, you're rude, unsourced and insulting to the point of unreadability. You may well have some good points in there, but they were lost in the viciousness.

Curious:

Perhaps you should do a little reasearch on Teresa and the quality of care she and her organizaion provided.

She, in her own words, believed that suffering brought people closer to her particular deity. Her primary focus was not to rid the poor and sick of suffering, but rather have them embrace it.

Although she may have provided food, water and shelter, the quality of the care was not provided had been largely criticized by respected publications. She tried to bring people closer to her god, not make them feel better.

If you want to praise that, be my guest, but don't act like her action are above reproach.

And your use of "everyone does it" defense of your name-calling isn't compelling.

You know, I would really like to be at the metaphorical pearly gates when Jacoby is standing there and Jesus comes out and when looking at her life's works asks her to explain this opinion column calling Mother Teresa a hypocrite and fraud. Now that will be entertainment, listening to her trying to justify her comments.

Right on! It's about time someone with a public voice said what many of us have long felt, Teresa was all about Teresa. The cult of Mother Teresa bears a striking resembelance to the cult of Princess Diana in their unswerving notion that this person, who spent more time lobbying for herself than for doing what she preached, should somehow be elevated to sainthhood.

Teresa talked a good game but rarely let her deads and actions supplant her mouth.

Having said that, it's no wonder she had so much doubt about her faith. If she had spent more time trying to be like Christ and less time trying to supplant Him as the one who suffered most, she may have had a closer walk with God.

"She points out Theresa's fascination with the acceptance of pain as the basis for a spiritual life."

This Ms. Jacoby does indeed do, but there are many who have this ludicrous ideal of pain as some sort of virtue. Ms. Jacoby merely writes like one of the vacuous New Agers who were big in the 80s, like Terri Cole Whittaker or Sondra Ray or various other spinoffs of Werner Erhart's mindless programs. Mother Teresa deserves an intelligently scathing critique, not this vacuous kind of 'Better Homes & Gardens' filler trash.

You know, atheist do have and make some good points about the non-existance of any deity and about the place of religion in life. I don't agree with it, but I'm willing to examine it for it's merits. However, the attacks on those with faith that Ms. Jacoby and Mr. Hitchens exhibit, and the vitriol that often accompanies their arguments does nothing for the cause of atheism in my opinion. Honestly, attack MT for her work based on religious or political beliefs seems a bit reckless. Especially when neither of the two mentioned above are nearly working as hard to alleviate the plight of poverty...or of anything for that matter.

Dear Susan,

If you were to be a saint, then, what would you suggest? How would you go about it? Just because Teresa was not your idea of a saint does not mean she is not a saint. That's why there are many different saints. The Gospel expresses itself in different ways in different people. Also, I think your understanding of Catholicism is shallow. Like many journalists, you speak assuredly when perhaps you should exercise more humility given your lack of understanding. Go brush up a bit!

Also, to the people who are aborted, those who fight for them can surely be seen as fighting for peace. You were once a fetus, and no one killed you. Aren't you glad?

Brian

This posting by Ms. Jacoby is knee-jerk and mostly abhorrent. I am an atheist and find Theresa's inner doubt very disturbing. I can't imagine what it's like to work every single day of your life in a selfless cause to help others. I also can't imagine what it's like to have that work down-played by some overzealous boo-birds who point out that some donations came from the wrong people, or some support you gave or received was from people who history has judged to be scoundrels. Let me who is free from sin judge all...? Can you really rationalize that?

Ms. Jacoby, get a life. Walk a day in Theresa's shoes! Can you? Have you? Surrounded by abject poverty and despair and wondering where God is seems to be a pretty logical reaction. By not trying to put the despair into words seems reasonable too. How could one?

The most disturbing aspect of this whole story, to me, is that her dying wish is to have these letters destroyed. A fact that you don't even mention here. This priest, with good intentions, wishes to do what with them? Spin them to make her more popular? Make money for the church? Go against her dying wish? Show the masses that doubt is OK? I don't know.

As an atheist I find all this curious and dramatic. I do not find a rational reason for dragging Mother Theresa through the mud, though. That would take a self-importance and a disregard for the day-to-day work of, by all accounts, one of the most selfless and dedicated lives ever lived, that I simply can muster.

Please, Ms. Jacoby, reassess.

I find it striking that the author could write such a scathing article attacking Mother Teresa (arguably one of the more beloved figures of Catholicism) and receive relatively benign commentary. yet, whenever there is an article attempting to explain or humanize Islam, the comments are full of hatred and accusations of terrorism. Why?

I think the letters show us the human side of her and that she also had doubts and conflicts in her life. To me, that just adds to her wonderfullness. I'm rather disappointed that the author of this opinion article is being dis-respectful but not refering to the subject of the article as Mother Teresa at each instance she is mentioned.

Oh pulllleeezzeeeee.

Give it a rest.

If you really understood what a journey faith is, the metaphor being the 40 years wandering in the desert, you wouldn't write this stuff.

And good for you. I wouldn't wish that 'night of darkness' on anyone.

Anyone.

Mike K wrote:

"As for calling us "idiots", thanks for reminding us that civility and tolerance are not Christianity's defining attributes."

Oh please. Christians get mad and fed up and disgusted with stupidity just like the next person.

Let's see, giving food and water to the hungry, giving shelter to the homeless, giving care and medical attention to the sick and dying - you're right, that isn't alleviating suffering at all!

By the way, that would be an example of the stupidity I was talking about above....

Very well done. Anyone who tries to keep women in one of the world's most impoverished nations from using birth control is certainly no saint. By fomenting Catholicism in India, Teresa contributed to on-going oppression, abetted poverty, and maintained the status quo.

Miss Jacoby,

You are a class act. You provide clear, thoughtful, rational discourse on religious topics, and you are adept at cutting through the BS thrown at rational thought by organized religion and their adherents. I very much enjoyed your article here on MT. Please keep up the good work.

B-man

St. Augustine v. Hitchens - LOVE it! Just the thought of if makes my day.

Does anyone have anything to say about the criticisms that Susan has on the Catholic Church and the institution of sainthood? Or, is it just bash Susan Jacoby Day?

Ms. Jacoby, now that you have accounted for the life of Mother Theresa, please account for your life. What did you do today, or this week, or this year to make someone's life better?

Dear Susan

I am sorry for your soul in pain.
Seems by your text that referring you to a "shrink" or any kind of "faith professional" is not going to help either.

I feel it's a shame you attacking such wonderful human being, especially now that she is dead. It's not very courageous of you (Guess it's another gap, huh?)

Time to send your S.O.S.

Dear Susan

I am sorry for your soul in pain.
Seems by your text that referring you to a "shrink" or any kind of "faith professional" is not going to help either.

I feel it's a shame you attacking such wonderful human being, especially now that she is dead. It's not very courageous of you (Guess it's another gap, huh?)

Time to send your S.O.S.

An earlier poster Jay I believe asked if the money that is donated actually is used for its inteneded purpose.

Well, go visit any Missionaries of the Charity and see for yourself. They have no furniture. That's right no furniture. They live a life of poverty.

For those of you in the greater DC metro area, there is a Missionaries of the Charity in DC. They serve the poor every Saturday morning. Perhaps if you want to learn more about their work, history, and beliefs, and would like to help out, you might want to consider volunteering there one Saturday.

It's amazing what you can learn by actually seeing and being with people first hand and using your own minds eye to determine what it is all about. Any one who spends a morning with these sisters and is not moved has issues that mere mortals cannot cure.

In response to an earlier poster regarding the Confessions of St. Augustine, I agree that is a must read for believers and non-believers alike. St. Augustine could be writing it today, after all as he admits he loved sex, wealth, and good titles as much as anyone. But he also never stopped searching. Just because someone lived 1700 years ago doesn't mean they were stupid or ill-informed. In areas of logic and philosophy they were much more sophisticated than anyone today gives them credit for. I'd put St. Augustine up against Jacoby and Kitchens combined in a debate any day!!!

There are many good points here about the nature of sainthood and Mother Teresa's work in the world. But there is one logical falacy that appears here and in many other debates on this subject: it is true that there is no way that the existence of God can be proved, but it is equally true that God's nonexistence cannot be proved. Believing or not believing requires a leap of faith. The only logically sound position is agnosticism.

What a ghoulish, hateful, and uninformed piece by Jacobs. It's so uninformed that it doesn't merit a point-by-point counterargument. Better to disregard it.

I myself am not a religious person. I may not agree with everything Mother Theresa ever said or did or believed, but one cannot help but respect her good works. This article caused me to take a moment to read about her life, which only reinforced my admiration. I cannot understand why the author would write such an article. With so much evil in this world, why shoot arrows at Mother Theresa of all people?

Geez, Disgusted, I'm a "real" atheist (actually, I'm an anti-theist) and I find that Hitchens speaks just fine for me, as does Daniel Dennett, as does Richard Dawkins...as does Bertrand Russell, for that matter. Perhaps if YOU were an atheist, you'd know why.

Let me guess - you're a Republican who is used to telling people on the other side of the aisle which pundit/commentator does and doesn't qualify as a spokesperson for their opposing opinion/position. When I'm not laughing at loud at such delusional types, I'm eating their cheap arguments for lunch, as does Hitchens.

You should get used to it, because it's only going to get worse.

You're a class act all the way, Susan. Not.

Before I actually read this article, I'm going to summarize what it says:

Catholic Church evil blah blah blah Theresa a fraud blah blah blah patriarchy blah blah blah anti-woman blah blah blah Christopher Hitchens blah blah blah religion is stupid blah blah blah

Did I get close?

Whether MT required conversion to Christianity for being cared for by the MoC or was it just pure altruism? From a lot of personally heard accounts, it seems to have been motivated by the need to harvest souls for Jesus. Just a thought...

Bottom line is that for anyones most private letters to a spiritual adviser be made public is blasphemy to faith itself...any faith. It was blasphemy to publish, and blasphemy to take the discussion any further. Which one of anyone reading would care to lay there most personal conversations to God or a spiritual adviser published. It would be different if she asked for sainthood, she didn't.

You're a class act all the way, Susan. Not.

Poor miss Jacoby. Seemingly devoid of an deep faith in anything and therefore deeply sad. On Faith, I thought was for some educated, learned people to comment on various questions and issues. I know the blog sections are open for blathering and bloviating galore, but I thought the columnists are really supposed to know something about faith and therefore offer a unique perspective. Religion or no, for Jacoby to take potshots at a person whose actions, not doubts or words, are the real legacy and who probably accomplished more good in a week than miss Jacoby could hope to do in her lifetime, is the ultimate of narcissism and self-centeredness on her behalf. Reading the comments, you cannot but feel sorry for miss Jacoby, who appears quite deeply wounded in some way and threatened. Mother Teresa is no threat to anyone. The progress of society has certainly seen many advancements for women and the righting of many injustices. But it has also neglected women in many ways in their spiritual strength and their overall happiness and contentment in their chosen vocations. Mother Teresa struggled with faith, embraced the struggle and was a shining light and a saint in this world. Saints, in the Catholic tradition, are not flawless human beings, as no one is flawless. In fact, many overcame significant flaws. Mother Teresa deserves to be a saint, and fortunately, the sad and tormented ramblings of a hurt and scarred woman like miss Jacoby, will not really have much effect in that regard.

Great article. Wow!! Exposing hypocrites should be a sport.

Susan Jacoby, there is so much wrong with your hateful, judgmental article I don't know where to begin.

Evidently, you've never heard of the tradition whereby people are judged more on the basis of their actions than on their words.

As a fellow atheist/agnostic, I find you an embarrassment. I now know how moderate Muslims must feel. I feel like telling people of faith, "Please do not take this venomous witch as emblematic of all of us."

Somehow, although you profess to be atheist/agnostic, you manage to come across as holier than thou.

I am not Catholic, I'm not religious, I'm not antiabortion, I'm not anticontraception, yet I can admire Mother Theresa. She embraced a belief system, one which is shared by untold millions, and--despite serious doubts--acted on it. She worked tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of so many downtrodden people. The fact that you do not share her beliefs does not invalidate all her noble accomplishments.

What have you done to help others, Ms. Jacoby?

Although I always thought Mother Teresa's views on contraception and abortion were wrong, I disagree that she was any more a narcissist than anyone. Especially anyone who is profoundly depressed. Her letters weren't about publicity. They were probably her only outlet for her pain. For the first time, I admire her enormously, because for the first time I can understand why she did the work she did. The essence of depression is a cycle of unwanted inward-directed thoughts. Yet she went on with the work. Jacoby accuses her of not attacking the root causes of poverty. Who among us does that? Does Jacoby? Or is Jacoby focusing on her own career in the spotlight?

Susan Jacoby you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Not because you call out Mother Teresa. She, like you , me and the rest of humanity are in many way defined by hypocrasy. But because you fail to see that regardless of her PRIVATE thoughts, she still dedicated her life to helping others.

Regarding your assinine (sorry its the only word that fits) thoughts on her band-aids. Think about it this way if everybody put a band-aide on the sores, that would also solve many of the issues related to poverty.

I am not religious in the least bit but you must be the most depressed and pathetic human being on the face of hte earth if you can't seperate your political views from your ethical ones. Pathetic doesn't even being to describe you . . .

was charity the reason for the S&L ripoff? would MT have partied with Paris Hilton if the church put her in OC to serve?

being an atheist, I recognize stupid pretending to be an atheist

Elizabeth posted: I knew Mother Teresa was a hypocritical sham when she denied the option of divorce to the masses but thought it was OK for her good friend Diana. I suppose she also thought the latter's use of birth control was just fine and dandy and would have "understood" if poor, tormented Diana had had to resort to abortion at some point. Just like every other Catholic hypocrite who rails against the "evils" of abortion, but somehow manages to justify it when a family member is involved. (And don't kid yourself: "practicing" Catholics have abortions at the same rate as the rest of the U.S. population, if not higher.)

Wow! I'm nearly speechless. What a wealth of information you are privy to!

How did you come to have such intimate knowledge of Princess Diana's reproductive health? Was she on the pill, or did she just use a diaphragm?

As far as her divorce goes, where did she derive the power to actually DENY divorce to the masses?

Diana was not without faults and yet did great good things...what a shock that Mother Teresa did not cast stones at her. I imagine they were not "girlfriends" of the sort that required her to dwell on any "shortcomings" of the Princess.

As far as that abortion speculation, it's just that. Nice projection of what Mother Teresa would allow her to do.

Furthermore, could you point me in the direction of the study that separated the rate of abortions among practicing Catholics against the rate of abortion among non-practicing and non-Catholics? Thanks. What a fascinating study to conduct!

"So, instead of feeding the poor, she should have handed them some condoms? You say, "sorry, we're not giving out food and water anymore"

No instead we should we should feed the people who can't feed themselves and encourage them to have 17 kids; no, even better, let's threaten them with eternal damnation if they engage in any kind of sane, sexual health practices (like using condoms) which might prevent them from needing MT's hospice care as they die from AIDS or stop them from having those 17 kids who they are still unable to feed, so we have to keep feeding more and more of them ad infinitum... Let's keep that cycle of suffering going like the Energizer Bunny so the next wannabe saint has plenty of suffering people to help (her become a saint)

By the way, I don't remember anyone suggesting that condoms should have been handed out INSTEAD of food.

"Perhaps Susan Jacoby should look at Teresa with more sympathy if she could just allow (for a moment) that intense scrutiny of any of our personal and private lives would reveal contradictions, moral failings, and painful attempts at bringing about congruity between our professions and our private practices and beliefs."

Yes, but WE ordinary people are not candidates for sainthood. If someone is to be held up as better than everyone else then that person should actually BE better than everyone else. A public claim of faith while hiding strong personal doubts is hypocricy, especially when that faith is used as a basis for promoting irrational and demonstrably harmful policies i.e. the Catholic moratorium on birth control.

Curious:

I never said she was a bad person nor that I hated her. I questioned the praise she receives in spite of the fact that her apparent goal was not the eleviation of suffering but rather the acceptance of it.

I see the former as more admirable.

As for calling us "idiots", thanks for reminding us that civility and tolerance are not Christianity's defining attributes.

I tend to believe that it is extremely healthy not to follow dogma, be it religious or political. Therefore I take propaganda with a cartload of salt. I see Ms. Jacoby's article as nothing more than propaganda, maybe she comes from liberalism, maybe from women's lib or maybe she is a garden-variety cynic. I think she comes from all three and proud of it.

There is a reality of violence in everyday life, especially in America. And I happen to agree with Mother Teresa's point of view regarding abortion being the most violent act of humans against nature - let's not talk about God or take this into the spiritual realm, let's stay in the rational field that "free-thinkers" take refuge in.

Ms. Jacoby, I value your point of view even when I find it caustic, cynical, propagandistic and mediocre. You are not a liberal, you are not a free-thinking rational human being, and if you pay attention to your writings you'll find that you are repeating other people's ideas and that you are attacking something or someone who just happens to view life in a different way. A way that demands counter-propaganda, what a waste of time for both sides.

What a sad little screed that was.

HOW can the Washington Post continue to publish this nasty bigotry?

The vituperation in this commentary is beneath comment. Time to go, Susan.

Although I am not a Catholic and find much to disagree with in most of the church's teachings, and although I can admit that Mother Theresa, being imperfect herself and trying to navigate the treacherous waters of an imperfect world, may have used her celebrity to make some unsavory contacts with the wealthy and powerful, her words and deeds seem to me to have always been directed towards what would contribute the ultimate beneficence to her fellow suffering human beings.

While some of the assertions Susan Jacoby makes in her essay on Theresa are correct, the vehemence and venom with which she speaks reveals to me an unkind, unhappy, unforgiving, and possibly even an unloving person.

Reading Susan's work makes me sad for her and not dissillusioned with Theresa.

Mother Theresa was never an adept political challenger in terms of eradicating poverty by changing the causes of poverty. She was a tireless worker, and beacon of humility to all those in the world. She showed us that true service to others is an astounding love. I am not Catholic, but certainly if the Catholics want to beatify her, that is their business and no one elses. Ms. Jacoby is upset over their intent to beatify her, but why if she is an unbeliever does she care?

I think that religions and beliefs are part of being human and trying to make sense of it all. I am Christian, but I respect people of all beliefs. I don't respect people who cut down others beliefs for their own self promotion.

Doubt is natural, as faith is merely faith and needs no proof, or it would not be faith. It would be science.

While some of Susan Jacoby's remarks seem valid and insightful, her general cynicism and rancor spoil any real consideration of her arguments. Her judgnmental militancy in her own intense atheismand skepticism rivals any true believer's counterpoints of belief. One may discuss the merits of Mother Teresa's life, work, writings (public and private)with deep disagrement and profound disapproval, but Ms. Jacoby's vitriol shows that she is less interested in a critique than a complete character assasination. I'll bet Mother Teresa -- with whatever beliefs and doubts, patholgies and strengths -- would want to pray for her -- even though Ms. Jacoby may disregard that as nonsense or worse.

What a waste of writing talent and energy. Susan, these are thoughts that should be scribed in your personal journal. In addition to the offending manner, your essay has no merit in my opinion. Perhaps if not better found in your journal, this might be better material for Craigs List Rants today?

What a waste of writing talent and energy. Susan, these are thoughts that should be scribed in your personal journal. In addition to the offending manner, your essay has no merit in my opinion. Perhaps if not better found in your journal, this might be better material for Craigs List Rants today?

M. Teresa spent her life serving those most in need. No need to disagree about that. And for an ordinary person a lifetime of good works serving other should be plenty for a round of attaboys.
However, we’re not talking about an ordinary person. We’re talking about a woman being canonized as a saint in one of the world’s largest and most influential religious institutions. We’re talking about a person no longer regarded as an ordinary person, and instead held as an example to millions. I think that warrants quite a bit of discussion about her motivations since, if you’re going to be a religious example, motivations are a pretty big factor. The idea that just because M. Teresa was M. Teresa means she should be exempt from scrutiny and criticism is outrageous. Her private life, and her private relationship with God, are extremely relevant factors in the consideration of her status as s saint. Or should be.
While I don’t necessarily agree with Ms. Jacoby on all the details, and I do believe the tone a bit harsh, I commend her for taking an unpopular stance against a very popular figure to outline some key issues.

While some of Susan Jacoby's remarks seem valid and insightful, her general cynicism and rancor spoil any true consideration of her arguments. Her judgnmental militancy in her own atheism rivals any believer's counterpoints of belief. One may discuss the merits of Mother Teresa's life, work, writings (public and private)with deep disagrement and profound disapproval, but Ms. Jacoby's vitriol shows that she is less interested in a critique than a complete character assasination. I'll bet Mother Teresa -- with whatever beliefs and doubts, patholgies and strengths -- would want to pray for her -- even though Ms. Jacoby may disregard that as nonsense or worse.

While some of Susan Jacoby's remarks seem valid and insightful, her general cynicism and rancor spoil any true consideration of her arguments. Her judgnmental militancy in her own atheism rivals any believer's counterpoints of belief. One may discuss the merits of Mother Teresa's life, work, writings (public and private)with deep disagrement and profound disapproval, but Ms. Jacoby's vitriol shows that she is less interested in a critique than a complete character assasination. I'll bet Mother Teresea -- with whatever beliefs and doubts, patholgies and strengths -- would want to pray for her -- even though Ms. Jacoby may disregard that as nonsense or worse.

I feel sorry for you Susan. Mother Teresa would have tended to your needs with no benefit to her. I am amazed that the Washington Post and any of your grantors feel that your "writing" is professional, literary, or journalistic. Your piece isn't a thoughtful perspective from an atheist/agnostic, but a personal, mean, attack on a kind, selfless, and peaceful woman who had private doubts about her own faith. Private doubts about her OWN faith -- a faith that imposed no requirements on you or others. She was human, aspiring to be holy through a life of service to others. Why does that call for criticism?

Ms. Jacoby, your ignorance is stunning. You remind me of a closed-minded undergraduate who knows nothing of the traditions s/he is trying to critique. Study affective (Franciscan) piety, especially as it relates to women's devotion, and read "The Book of Margery Kempe" and Mother Julian's "Revelations of Divine Love." The whole point, you will see, is an extremely close, personal connection to the suffering of Christ. This is not "narcissism," as you unproblematically term it (in fact, why do you appropriate such a loaded term from psychological discourse without criticizing that tradition, as you do Mother Teresa's?). Study. Learn.

The sites rules for posting a comment state:

"User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site."

I guess the rule on "personal attacks" does not apply to panelists like Ms. Jacoby.

Seems like a double standard.

Mike K, Irv, Bknott:

MT did next to nothing for the poor and down-trodden, right? She was more concerned with, what, self-promotion? Wanted more than anything to be a Saint, is that it? You guys are idiots.

Mother Teresa served poor people of every faith in building an international mission that boasts over 4,500 nuns and religious brothers working at almost 600 homes in more than 100 countries. Mother Teresa's willingness to lay hands on the destitute and diseased whom others shunned was what made her special. "Perhaps the greatest message she has given the world is the value and dignity of human life."

She did the things that no one else wanted to do. She took care of the people who no one else wanted to touch - the sick and dying, the abandoned children, the lepers. And for this you fault her? For 50 years she committed herself to helping the sick, dying and hungry around the world. Yeah, she was a really bad person. I can see why you would hate her.

Why do you care if the Catholic church makes her a saint? Are you Catholic? It really doesn't matter. Don't bash her and her life's work because of it. Don't hate her just because you can't live up to or even understand her level of love and sacrifice.

Mother Teresa is probably everything you say and less. Oh by the way, when was the last time you gave a homeless person, or family something to eat?

If one has a point to make, a better tactic would be to present a more balanced approach. No matter what the shortcomings of Mother Theresa, she helped gravely ill people, rejected by society, die with some dignity. The points that were made, if true, appear valid. However, the overall negative tone of the article leads me to doubt your conclusions, since you appear to be too biased to make an objective analysis.

I have to say I find most of these posts mean-spirited at best. And, they are really missing the point. Mother T unquestionably led a devoted life of service. Whether any of us feel she made the best choices about that doesn't change the essential goodness of her life. And neither does her private relationship with the God she believed in.

I am an atheist who apparently lacks the "God gene." I neither feel the presence of the Holy Spirit nor feel a void where that presence ought to be. Other people do. I think those feelings are artifacts of the human brain and don't signify anything concerning the existence or non-existence of God. People who have these feelings experience them profoundly and, therefore, disagree with me. But, my acts of charity are as valid as a Godly person's acts of charity - and vice versa.

Mother Teresa was heroic in her goodness and altruism, and exceptional in terms of the energy with which she advocated for the people she chose to devote her life to. Can't we simply respect that, and also respect her emotional struggle? What is the point in picking her bones like this? May she rest in peace.

Susan Jacoby obviously has a political axe to grind and does so without providing any reasoning or evidence to back up her claims.
She picked and choose quotes to fit the view she choose to have of Mother Teresa. But her argument only holds water if the remaining vast ammount of evidence is ignored.

Despite all the failures that this author so angrily points out, Mother Teresa did a tremendous ammount to alleviate the suffering around the world and especially in Calcutta. The author neatly ignores that, blithly implying that because Mother Teresa did not do more - her work was invalid.

This artical is an angry rant against anyone who does not agree with the author about abortion or contraception. It actually says very little about Mother Teresa and instead much much more about Susan Jacoby herself.

Its always easy to belittle the person who tries to accomplish great things. Mother Teresa accomplished great things. Susan Jacoby belittles them. I just wish we had more Mother Teresas than we had Susan Jacobys'.

Jacoby - so much hatred, so little time.

A simple question from someone new to this forum: Does Jacoby just hate people with religious beliefs, or does she hate everyone?

Thanks, Susan. That was a hoot and a half.

I knew Mother Teresa was a hypocritical sham when she denied the option of divorce to the masses but thought it was OK for her good friend Diana. I suppose she also thought the latter's use of birth control was just fine and dandy and would have "understood" if poor, tormented Diana had had to resort to abortion at some point. Just like every other Catholic hypocrite who rails against the "evils" of abortion, but somehow manages to justify it when a family member is involved. (And don't kid yourself: "practicing" Catholics have abortions at the same rate as the rest of the U.S. population, if not higher.)

Susan Jacoby obviously has a political axe to grind and does so without providing any reasoning or evidence to back up her claims.
She picked and choose quotes to fit the view she choose to have of Mother Teresa. But her argument only holds water if the remaining vast ammount of evidence is ignored.

Despite all the failures that this author so angrily points out, Mother Teresa did a tremendous ammount to alleviate the suffering around the world and especially in Calcutta. The author neatly ignores that, blithly implying that because Mother Teresa did not do more - her work was invalid.

This artical is an angry rant against anyone who does not agree with the author about abortion or contraception. It actually says very little about Mother Teresa and instead much much more about Susan Jacoby herself.

Its always easy to belittle the person who tries to accomplish great things. Mother Teresa accomplished great things. Susan Jacoby belittles them. I just wish we had more Mother Teresas than we had Susan Jacobys'.

Ah Susan Jacoby, therein lies the rub. You hate Mother (did she have children?) Teresa because of her stance on abortion. The vitriol pro baby killers have towards any who would thwart their wicked desires! Susan and all you who MUST have sex without proper protection to save the unwanted baby from your killing fields get fixed.

Susan,

I never miss reading your essays because I find that while we don’t always agree, you are an excellent devil’s advocate at times, make some very compelling arguments and are, at the very least, an excellent source of food for thought. For that I thank you.

As regards this essay, however, I cannot be more disappointed.

You criticize Mother Teresa as being self centered for expressing concern for her own soul, as if being mindful of her own journey toward salvation is to be disregarded in order to actually legitimize her good work.

I think you unfairly criticize her speculation about her own sainthood as well. The official investigation into her possible beatification began while she was still living, and this is a first. Surely she was aware of it, so I don’t really see it as narcissistic to speculate on what that may mean or how it might be carried out. It would be different if it were total speculation of events beyond her death, but it was not.

What would have been narcissistic would have been to suddenly rest on her laurels and discontinue her work for lack of necessity, having got herself on the road to sainthood sooner than anyone else. However, she worked to the end, and says she would even forego rest in Heaven to continue it.

To indicate that she did nothing to further the cause of peace, but that “that of course does not make her unique among Nobel peace prize recipients”, means there is no point in bringing it up. Let alone tossing out the example she set of selflessness and aid to the poor, or successfully brokering a temporary cease-fire between the Israeli army and Palestinian guerrillas to save 37 orphans. It becomes clear here that we have arrived at the crux of your disdain for her in that you do not agree with her view on abortion and contraception, as you note regarding her acceptance speech.

You say: “Teresa never showed any concern, in India or elsewhere, about the root causes of poverty--including lack of education, corrupt dictatorships, inequitable distribution of wealth, bigotry against social, ethnic, or religious underclasses, and contempt for women.” You seem to make the demand that if one could not be super-human, one did nothing good.

Ironically, your bone to pick over her stand on abortion and contraception doesn’t show any concern for any of the above either, except maybe contempt for women.

If I am mistaken, and your issue is actually with the sensationalism of these letters and their use by the church to propel her into sainthood, the onus is not on her. To belittle what she did, because you as a professional opinion-giver, disagree with some of her beliefs or the church she was faithful to is actually far worse than all of what you accuse her of combined and multiplied.

It’s strange, as a Catholic I am able to find respect for you and your views, and yet you cannot see past your own little biases to recognize the good of another despite their (real or perceived) imperfections. I am so disappointed.

If one so near to Jesus and so arduously doing his work can have doubts and deep dakness about faith, it gives me reassurance. I am among the most self-indulgent of persons, yet I yearn for a depth of faith and obedience I have yet to find.

Our Blessed Lord has given us such perons as Mother Teresa to suffer, as did so many martyrs, and yet cling to faith. Thank God that she has been so brutally honest in her expressions. It renews my hope that I might yet find the deep faith in God I seek amid my many, many sins.

May God continue to bless her and the marvelous witness to love and peace that she offers in our cruel world.

This really is more of a rant than an argument. That is always depressing from people who are professing that the advantage of their worldview is that theirs is based in reason.

That Mother Teresa's worldview is irrational is assumed rather than argued for. So there is no real reason given why her persistence is evidence of irrationality.

The argument, such as it is, involves a sleight of hand. This magic trick occurs in the following two lines, one of which ends a paragraph and the other begins the next:

"What does a rational person, as opposed to someone who has a deep need to believe in the unprovable or the obviously false, do when doubt raises its insistent head?

When a rational human being is confronted by evidence that contradicts his or her beliefs, then the belief must be modified."

But what a rational person does when doubt raises its insistent head is very different from what a rational person does when confronted by evidence that contradicts his of her beliefs. At least that is true of any rational person who doubts his or her beliefs on evidence short of that which contradicts those beliefs, as any rational person should.

No evidence is given that Mother Teresa believed that her experiences were not consistent with her beliefs, only that they gave her doubts. And it is only the rational person who lacks any convictions who changes his or her beliefs at the first sign of doubt.

Miraclestudies,

How many gods do you guys have??

If one so near to Jesus and so arduously doing his work can have doubts and deep dakness about faith, it gives me reassurance. I am among the most self-indulgent of persons, yet I yearn for a depth of faith and obedience I have yet to find.

Our Blessed Lord has given us such perons as Mother Teresa to suffer, as did so many martyrs, and yet cling to faith. Thank God that she has been so brutally honest in her expressions. It renews my hope that I might yet find the deep faith in God I seek amid my many, many sins.

May God continue to bless her and the marvelous witness to love and peace that she offers in our cruel world.

Jacoby's comments have minimal objectivity; it's as if she has no interest in trying to treat her subject fairly. "Since I never had a high opinion of Mother Teresa in the first place" is not a premise; it's prejudice, one that taints her remarks from the outset.

On the point that Teresa's doubting disqualifies her from sainthood, perhaps she should read Augustine's "Confessions," especially Book Ten, in which Augustine reveals his doubts about his own salvation (i.e., because of lingering lust and pride). That might provide some context for the place of doubt in the Christian life, as it has been understood historically.

Mother Teresa is the ultimate demonstration in the results of worshiping the god of the crucifixion (the "god" who enjoys the suffering of those who wish to love him) and not the God of the resurrection, the God who raised Jesus from the tomb as the ultimate proof that his life-affirming message was the truth.

I spent K-12 in the hands of nuns who idolized Mother Teresa, holding her up to our young minds as the very epitome of the effectiveness of Catholic beliefs. And as a direct result, I grew up bitterly afraid of God.

But as an adult, I came to realize that it is impossible to love the god of the crucifixion and that any attempt to do so would be inherently and deeply conflicted. And so it is the God of the resurrection (the God who rejected Jesus' sacrifice by replacing it with an immortal life) that I worship now.

Whatever mental gymnastics the "true believers" attempt in their desire to construe Teresa's newly revealed reality as a "proof" of her holiness, they can never make it attractive to healthy minds. They will, instead, be forced to appeal to those who believe that Teresa's internal agony is something that God wants of them, as well.

And a "god" who wants us to suffer is the same "god" who endorses wars. And I, for one, have no use for "him".

But I'm also not one bit surprised that Teresa found that he is "silent" as "he" does not exist.

And if "he" did, we should reject "him" wholeheartedly in the name of Jesus of Nazareth's God of love.

Like all religious idols, Mother Teresa is a collection of conflicting realities and the subject of ignorant aggrandizement. She did not deserve a Nobel Peace Prize nor elevation to a glorified mysterious deification. She was a women, no more no less. If she helped the sick and poor, as is widely claimed she did, then she deserves respect and recognition for her altruistic endeavors. Our clouded view of the unknowable corrupts our vision of reality, and diminishes the one distinguishment of man from beast - the power of reason.

"As a man who was able to differentiate between reality and illusion once said, there's a sucker born every minute."

Well, Ms Jacoby you've summed up the entire concept of religion in this one sentence. It's not just Mother Teresa who is guilty of this sort of deified self promotion but anyone else associated with "religion". After all, take a look at most of the wars this world has fought. Pretty much all are rooted in some sort of religious foundation. Mother Teresa's such an easy, slow-moving target. Just like all the others.

Sucker is a good word. I'd also like to add "opiate of the masses".

The outstanding question seems to be, what happened to all those millions of dollars donated to the Missionaries of Charity? How much of that money has been applied to what it was intended for?

This is a tirade by an obvious hack. Citing Hitchens as some sort of authority on Atheism is a slap in the face to any real Atheist. Do you have a personal beef with Mother Teresa? What did she ever do to you? Not only you cite contempt for women as a cause of poverty... Can you show where that is the case most sociology textbooks make no mention of this being a cause of impoverishment. I'm glad you don't believe in God, because you are probably a miserable person.

METRICSU:

You completely missed the point of YOYO's post: it's called irony, a rhetorical device whereby one points out the ridiculousness of an assertion by stressing the opposite point through the use of hyperbole.

I really enjoyed this woman's article. She points out Theresa's fascination with the acceptance of pain as the basis for a spiritual life. To me this is just another form of masochism and it underlies all of modern catholicism. I grew up RC in Kansas in the 1950s and I have to say that the emphasis on pain and how it made you a better person definitely turned a lot of people I know into rather kinky folks. Is pain that which makes us better persons? I think the entire idea that God requires sacrifice shows us the baselessness of most theological thought. What kind of God would create a conscious universe that worked this way? If this is really what God wants, people to suffer noblely for him, then he is some sort of sad, twisted being and I'd rather go back to nothingness than accept that. And the Book people are now going to tell me I will be sent to hell for what I can see to be the actual truth of the matter. Guess what, I am not scared. I don't believe it. So you folks can tell yourself, well he'll see when he dies, but I know better than that. And my faith in this is absolute. No doubts whatsoever.

The scriptures read the "the natural man diserns not the things of the Spirit," and Susan Jacoby has proved that point. When you don't know the Lord, or his Spirit, how can anything you write on the subject be of any significance, importance, or truth. Mother Teresa's doubts were found in Jesus himself in the garden of Gethsemene when he asked for his cup to be taken.
Seek the Lord, and you will find the answer, but disparagement without knowledge is ignorance, and though you may speak with many letters behind your name, your lack of spiritual knowledge is as visible as the Emperor's New Clothes.
Instead of trying to knock the Lord with intellect, yield your intellect, and you will see Him.
There's no cost. It's free.
If you are correct, the whole issue doesn't matter, but if I am correct, it makes all the difference.
Sincerely.

Susan, ask yourself who you would want to be near you when you were dying in India, after a life of poverty. The Lord sent Teresa and not Susan to comfort, you have to aknowledge His love in this choice. Your words carry no love or comfort.

"We are humans therefore we are imperfect what is so hard to understand about that. Striving for holiness can take many forms, but it will be an imperfect process. "

This is exactly the type of reasoning that drives rational thinkers crazy. While it sounds logical enough by itself, when taken into context it's maddening.

The Church is trying to santify Theresa, which by definition makes her more that human.

Well don't you think it's too late now. Mother Theresa has already been endowed into Sainthood.
Regardless if she had doubts. I'm sure every one does. I say leave well enough alone. Let Sainted Mother Theresa rest in peace.

Well don't you think it's too late now. Mother Theresa has already been endowed into Sainthood.
Regardless if she had doubts. I'm sure every one does. I say leave well enough alone. Let Sainted Mother Theresa rest in peace.

Unfortunately, there is not a realist born every minute but fortunately Susan Jacoby is one of them. The media made Mother Teresa and it seems intent on continuing the myth. If Mother Teresa is elevated to sainthood she will join such other candidates as Junipero Serra who treated Indians as slaves and Pope Pius XII who did little to protest against the horrors of the Holocaust.

Nice article. I was sick of MT long before her death. For someone who has devoted her whole life to the poor, she has done remarkably little for them. She seemed to prefer getting face time with the press stumbling around the slums, as opposed to actually improving poor people's lives. I'm really not surprised she was planning her sainthood when she was still alive. That anyone would revere her for that is depressing. I wonder if the other saints were such glory-hounds?

Just curious, Ms Jacoby, and all you free thinkers, how much of your life you have devoted to caring for the poor. I don't mean sending a check -- I mean tending to the sick -- caring for them -- wiping their brow -- feeding them -- living with them. Mother Teresa's doubt about faith and God are not surprising -- faith is about believing that which is hard to believe, without verifiable proof. If Ms. Jacoby wants to deny God -- fine -- we live in a free society. But to denigrate a woman who spent many years of her life tending to the sick, hungry and unwanted in society for having doubts about faith, well, it just proves that the atheist movement has turned mean and ugly -- challenging anyone who believes as a fool -- and chastising those who truly do good work. Susan -- what good works have you done? How much time have you spent with the poor and hungry and lonely? Have you made it your life to live with the poor? If not, then get off Mother Teresa, and her doubts -- you have NO RIGHT TO JUDGE.

Unfortunately, there is not a realist born every minute but fortunately Susan Jacoby is one of them. The media made Mother Teresa and it seems intent on continuing the myth. If Mother Teresa is elevated to sainthood she will join such other candidates as Junipero Serra who treated Indians as slaves and Pope Pius XII who did little to protest against the horrors of the Holocaust.

Unfortunately, there is not a realist born every minute but fortunately Susan Jacoby is one of them. The media made Mother Teresa and it seems intent on continuing the myth. If Mother Teresa is elevated to sainthood she will join such other candidates as Junipero Serra who treated Indians as slaves and Pope Pius XII who did little to protest against the horrors of the Holocaust.

Unfortunately, there is not a realist born every minute but fortunately Sussan Jacoby is one of them. The media made Mother Teresa and it seems intent on continuing the myth. If Mother Teresa is elevated to sainthood she will join such other candidates as Junipero Serra who treated Indians as slaves and Pope Pius XII who did little to protest against the horrors of the Holocaust.

Wow, you're really psycho! When was the last time you ministered to anyone?

I find it ridiculous that you could criticize the beliefs and intentions of a person like Mother Teresa. Our actions are what truly define us. Did she dedicate her life to helping the poor? Yes. That's a heck of a lot more than you or I do. How can we judge that? She may not have been perfect, but that's what makes her all the more inspiring.

I'm surprised at the level of disagreement with Susan's post today. I'm with her.

Teresa's works are not best described as focused on the eleviation of suffering, but rather on the acceptance and embracement of it. I don't consider such to be worthy of the considerable praise Teresa seems to receive.

I'm not a Catholic and I have no particular opinions about Mother Teresa. I don't know much about her, other than that she worked with the poor in India. But what is striking to me about Jacoby's commentary is its petty meanness. Jacoby critiques Mother Teresa "for putting band-aids on sores rather than trying to fight poverty itself." What is so great about tackling huge underlying causes -- which, by the way, the aid community has been doing for decades without much noticeable impact? Does Jacoby really believe that helping individuals is such a contemptible act? If so, I feel sorry for her neighbors and friends.

Wasn't it Mark Twain who said, "There are no selfless acts"? I agree with many posters here. So what if it made Mother Teresa feel good to help the poor? So what if that was her primary motivation? That's the reality in any act of charity. There was a question on here a while ago about what is more important, personal salvation or good works? Well, most Christians do good works seeking personal salvation, but as long as they are doing good works, they can have whatever motivation they need! I do agree with Susan that these letters are just a stunt to lock in MT's sainthood. The timing of the book stinks of premeditation. But, I don't believe in saints, so, whatever. People are going to see in these letters whatever their background and personal beliefs influence them to see. Believers will see a tormented soul whose doubt lead her to firmer belief, non-believers will see a self-centered quest for Jesus/God's love. As I said before, whatever.

Clearly, this author has a problem with MT's acts while she was here. I think it's a shame that because someone chose to help in the way they believed they get attacked. MT wasn't a scientist or doctor she was a religious person doing what she knew to do for others. Her faith was public and private, liberal commentators decried her public faith as phony, and now want to decry her private doubt as proof.

I think its a sick waste of time.

I'm an atheist, but this article is an assassination. If a person dedicates his or her life to good works based on a commitment, however false, it's the work that counts, not the commitment to the idea. She could believe in Mickey Mouse, for all that it matters--and that's between her and herself, not something to judge her works by.

That fact that Susan quotes from Christopher Hitchens is hilarious at best. This man is to religion as Michael Moore is to politics. Sure, there are nuggets of truth in his writings, but the volume of facts and counter-arguments that are glossed over or completely disregarded is profound.

I'm not intimately familiar with Mother Theresa's work, but I can tell you the first thought that comes to mind when I hear her name: Children. The fact that she brought attention to a subject matter mostly unheard of in the pre-cable, pre-internet age, is remarkable. I think it's absurd to discount the amount of contributions that were given by Americans simply due to the work of Theresa.

I'm sure Susan would be more than happy to point out the great philanthropic causes that she has championed during her life.

From Frued to Ms. Jacoby, the reductionsit argument against God remains the same: Those with faith in God are somehow mentally disturbed, emotionally weak, or dellusional. This is an extremely close minded way to view someone with whom you disagree. When we view Pacifists as cowards and pro-lifers as misogynists (or pro-choicers as baby-haters for that matter) we have stopped trying to understand the other side and simply started labeling. Mutal respect, understanding, and tolerance is never achieved by this.

Ms. Jacoby's insinuations that nearly all spiritual experience is mere hallucination stands against the majority of the human race that believes in a spiritual world. Believers experience God on a daily basis (although not always emotionally as we see in MT's case.) This is not to say that there are no hallucinations and superstitions in the world, however, to apply this to all religious experience is irresponsible.

I respect Ms. Jacoby's personal spiritual journey and whatever she believes about God. Although I disagree with her and find her opinion very hostile and disrepectful, I do not consider her pathological. I find I can respect and tolerate her opinion as the conclusions of a fairly reasonable person. I ask that she give believers the same.

Peace and truth to us all.

Mother Teresa followed the calling of her religion to the letter, something hardly anyone can claim to have done. To give one's entire life to relieving the agony of the very poor is, in any time, in any place, an act of immense significance. The value of such an act is not diminished by casual opinions in an American blogosphere.

"When a rational human being is confronted by evidence that contradicts his or her beliefs, then the belief must be modified".

Why? Like most people, I see constant reminders of man's ugliness and inhumanity toward others. But do I have to change my "belief" that people are basically good, and will come forth to help ?? I choose not to.

I'm sorry - this was just too much. Although I appreciate your counter-point, it just came across as a "rant" and more ugly than necessary. These letters were never meant to be public. Would you appreciate your confessor / doctor / psychiatrist sharing your deep pain? Neither would I.

I'm not Catholic and don't think much of the "saint" system, but Mother Teresa was a human being and lived what she professed, regardless of her inner turmoil. For that, I will always admire her and don't think she ever "glorified the suffering" of others.

Susan,

Wow, you come through your article incredibly bitter and caustic. I am an atheist and even I had a hard time stomaching your article because of its frothing hatred of religion.

Let it go. A life of serving the poor is respectable whatever the internal motives. Many people's lives were better off because of her, how many were worse off?

pg

"The amiable Jesus who changed water into wine to please his mother at a wedding held no interest for her. Jesus seems to have enjoyed making people happy, which I have always considered a great point in his favor in comparison to certain other gloomy prophets."

That sounds like something Louella Parsons might have written.

I wonder if Ms. Jacoby has even spent one minute with any of the sisters who are the Missionaries of Charity. I suggest she should. At least she can speak from the evidence abouth their work and beliefs that she covets so highly.

God doesn't have to explain his ways to any of us today. He already has through history. As Jesus said the gates to heaven are narrow, many of us won't have the ability to push through, I probably won't.

We are humans therefore we are imperfect what is so hard to understand about that. Striving for holiness can take many forms, but it will be an imperfect process.

What Mother Theresa did was make her will and desires secondary to what Jesus asks of all of us in the New Testament. She did not make her worldy desires and needs the primary focus of her life. She did what she discerened through prayer and faith the calling the Lord was asking of her.

St. Ignatius writes about the consolation and desolation of faith. Basically the highs and lows one goes through during their faith journey. You see this expressed in her letters, especially the desolation. This is normal for all people of faith. In fact it was anticipated in the Book of Proverbs in the Old Testament;

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, do not rely on your own insight. In all you do acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths".

As imperfect creatures, this is not always easy for us to do, but if you believe in God, just like all the early martyrs of the Church did who knew the Apostles personally and gave up their lives in Colosseum in Rome (some being eaten alive) then it is not so hard to understand how some people try to discern God's calling for them on earth, and focus their life on that calling instead of their own wordly desires.

Mother Theresa and all of the Saints in the Catholic Church (Roman and Greek) are examples of how we can put our own earthly desires aside and focus on God's calling for each of us. It is not always an easy path ask St. Augustine.

The gates are narrow, eternity is forever, and there is a path for all of us, the question is can we put our own pride away to find it. I believe Mother Theresa did just that, weaknesses and all.

Uff da! Susan needed one less cup of coffee this morning.. Usually, she is dead-on but but today I disagree.

What if Mother Teresa was a self-absorbed, self-aggrandizing, politically naive, Catholic hardliner? Is any of this news? Even when she was alive I got the the feeling that she loved the cameras as much as anything. Remember how she loved teaming with Prin. Di?

BUT, as nonsensical as religion is - here's a case where belief is a good thing. It took a normal human being and turned her into someone who tried to do something good. Dedicated her life to it, in fact, and that's something that should be honored.

Go ahead and take shots at the Catholic Church's silly insistence on turning people into "saints" (ridiculous-glad to say I wasn't force fed that nonsense as a kiddo. Unlike my poor husband, who probably needs as much therapy as Theresa could have used) however, I would argue releasing the letters makes for a more interesting a