Booksie.com-The Villainization of Mother Teresa by Nina Bingham

The Villainization of Mother Teresa by Nina Bingham

  

Let’s be clear about who we are talking about here: Nobel Peace Prizewinner. Founded the Sisters of Charity Non-Profit Convents to care for the poor and sick with 500 convents in over 100 countries. A lifelong Catholic Nun. Someone who remarked, when asked why she has never slept more than four hours a night, “There is too much to be done. How can I sleep while others suffer?” A woman who seems to have been worn to a nub by her self-imposed responsibilities to humanity; so spent by the immense demands of her calling that her diary recorded a personal crisis of faith: “The damned of Hell suffer eternal punishment because they experiment with the loss of God. In my own soul, I feel the terrible pain of this loss. I feel that God does not want me, that God is not God and that he does not really exist (www.religionnews.com).” Though she privately felt she had failed in her monumental calling,  she was judged by the Catholic Church and the public as a selfless benefactor of mankind; so unarguably selfless and saintly that the Catholic Church abandoned their history of century-long canonization process in popular favor of sainting her upon her death. 

This is the Mother Teresa the world came to know and marveled at. This is the same person critic Christopher Hitchins compares to Joan Crawford in a shocking tirade in 2004, published in Slate Magazine, entitled, “Mommie Dearest”. I had to ask myself: Who would want to attack the motives of a saint? Why would they want to?

Hitchins begins his character assassination by citing that the Pope side-stepped the Catholic Church’s century-old process for beatification and sainthood, in favor of granting her “instant canonization,” despite a senior cardinal’s admonition against it. After her death, the Pope waived the Vatican rule that prohibits investigation of the cause for beatification until five years after the subject’s death. It was the first time the rule had been put aside in recent memory (Religionnewsblog.com). It appears the Pope may have also been party to a fabricated “miracle” required for sainthood. I admit, those are big concessions by the Pope! Even if the “miracle” was fabricated to push her canonization through, does that then make her any less worthy of sainthood? Weren’t her good works good enough? Maybe the Vatican is going to drop their ancient “miracle” requirement. Maybe this is progress! Maybe it’s time they did.

Hitchins next labels “MT” a fanatic because she spoke out against abortion and divorce. Mind you, the Catholic Church has always stood against abortion and divorce, as does the majority of the world’s population (this is not an argument in favor, or against. I am simply pointing out statistics). Is it not understandable that a Catholic, whose life’s mission was to care for humanity defends life, and abhors the divorce of families? Does this make her a fanatic, or was she acting as a voice for the conservative majority? 

Hitchins also attempted to cast doubt on her financial integrity by pointing out that her organization received funds from a few distasteful sources. In a leap of logic, he questions,“Where did that (donation) money, and all the other donations, go?” Hitchins might have been able to crack her credibility by citing personal profit from

donations. Unfortunately (for the sake of his argument), Hitchins failed to produce even a scrap of evidence showing any misappropriation of funds. He broadly went on attacking her character by declaring, “Many more people are poor and sick because of MT. She was a fanatic fundamentalist, and a fraud...she violated the innocent.” Excuse me, but to borrow a once-popular Wendy’s slogan, “Where’s the beef?” 

I’m all for exposing charlatans and frauds, even in the most "politically incorrect" arenas such as religion. But an attack of this magnitude has got to contain at least a seed of truth for me to take it seriously. In examining his argument I was unable to tease out any hard evidence that “MT” did anything but good in this world, and had the purest of motives. 


There’s certain journalistic ethics that even the most liberal of critics must endeavor not to cross. One is to refrain from attacking the character of someone who has not raised the ire of the public in any way. Picking on the innocent is synonymous with being a bully. Hitchins could have at least picked on someone who wasn’t deceased, and could defend themselves! I really hate bullies.

Hitchins monumental leaps in logic and assumptions about Mother Teresa are staggering. For example, he makes a case for targeting the nun by quoting George Orwell's essay on Gandhi—that saints should always be presumed guilty until proved innocent. But he doesn’t explain why we should automatically be suspect of those sainted. Perhaps a jaded belief that philanthropic people are only a figment of the public’s naive, misguided imagination? Perhaps a belief that saintly people are a creation of the Catholic Church to perpetuate it’s own popularity? Now that argument I might have bitten on! But alas, he failed to make that argument, either. 


The premise of this article was that Mother Teresa was in fact not a benefactor of mankind; instead, he feels she was a con artist, stealing from the rich, and not giving to the poor. But where’s the proof? Instead of proof, Hitchins is relying on a few persuasive tactics to seal his argument: 


1. Mother Teresa is deceased and cannot defend herself. It’s easy to cast dispersions on someone who cannot “fight back.” 
2. Because she was canonized especially quickly, Hitchins raises the reader’s suspicion that perhaps her canonization was hastily, and improperly granted. 
3. Because The Sisters of Charity accepted funds from dubious sources, Hitchins plants the idea that Mother Teresa was therefore a dishonest person, and therefore probably inclined to steal what should have been given to the poor.  


His case against Mother Teresa is built upon shaky circumstantial “evidence.” He failed to produce direct evidence that proves any of his accusations. Hitchins article amounts to a dog-and-pony show; in a court of law no jury in the world could convict Mother Teresa of wrongdoing based upon the flappable and blowhard argument Hitchins provided.  If I give him any credit, I do give Hitchins credit for having the guts to try and defrock an untouchable icon of our generation.

You’ve got to either admire his pluck, or pity his cynicism that would cause him to attack a humanitarian nun. It was Mother Teresa who said, “If you judge people, you have no time to love them.” In the end, Hitchins judgmentalism failed to persuade me that Mother Teresa was a “Mommy Dearest” type of woman. In my final analysis, his quality of arguments were unconvincing, and left me with a cold feeling about him; not Mother Teresa. Is it cold in here, or is it just me?


www.booksie.com/Nina_Bingham


http://www.booksie.com/editorial_and_opinion/article/nina_bingham/the-villainization-of-mother-theresa/chapter/1 


References:

            Jonhston, Bruce. (2002). Mother Teresa’s diary reveals her crisis of faith. Item 1315. Retrieved January 29, 2010 from the World Wide Web: http://www.religionnewsblog.com

            Hitchins, C. (2003). Mommie Dearest. Slate magazine, posted Oct. 20, 2004. Retrieved January 29, 2010 from the World Wide Web: http://www.slate.com