THE CATHOLIC HTOWNER:
In my life, I have never seen atheists flip their lid over a canonization as much as I've seen the ire they've leveled at now St. Mother Teresa.
But what's that, you say? The Vatican made a mistake in making her a saint? She was really a monster that didn't care for anyone and this is all an elaborate marketing campaign for sainthood?
And that atheists, and atheists alone know the truth?
Given how much stock I put in conspiracy theories (which would be NONE), and given the fact NO atheist was on the canonization process, I find it impossible to believe any atheist (and one in particular, which I'll get to later) could in any way know better than the people who know the case best. In addition, since there is no reliable
So what are some of the accusations atheists have tried that never added up in the end? And why didn't they add up?
"She never performed any miracles after death."
Yeah, atheists try this after every new declared saint. The truth is the atheists giving this complaint are not on any cases concerning sainthood and are not doctors. I bring this up because most times they target medically connected miracles and are somehow not aware of the fact that no less than five doctors are asked to look into claims. When five people trained for years in medicine can't come up with a valid alternative explanation, that means whatever the atheist came up with had already been considered and dismissed.
"She accepted money from a financial scammer, and an award from a known dictator."
These are in reference to money she once received from Robert Maxwell, and the award was given to her by the Haitian dictator Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier. In the former case, no one knew at the time he was embezzling money from his company (nor could anyone prove the donation was embezzled money). In the latter case, the award was the Légion d'honneur, an award for military and civil merits that dates to Napoleon. Who presents the award has nothing to do with the person winning.
"Her religious order is a cult."
The Missionaries of Charity, like several religious orders, has a rigorous and lengthy process for accepting new members. This is a standard and acceptable practice to be sure the potential novice will fit into the order and whether they are actually called to the religious life. While a nine year trial period may seem like an eternity, the Church doesn't seem to have a problem with it and is much shorter than joining the Jesuits or becoming a doctor.
"Her order embezzled money from donors."
Once the charity gets the money, they are free to share it with another charity or a higher authority in the charity. That is a standard practice with charities, is NOT considered embezzlement, and would NEVER be considered embezzlement in a court of law.
"She didn't really believe in God."
This notion comes from one of her released diaries where she felt like God was distant from her. This spiritual phenomenon is actually called the "dark night of the soul", where the believer doesn't feel God being close to them. This has biblical basis in Psalms, some OT prophets, and of course the book of Job.
HOWEVER...at no point should this be viewed as atheism, as the person going through this spiritual dryness never gives up their belief in God.
"The Vatican never took accusations against her seriously. If they did, they would have never made her a saint."
That's not what the people who worked on her sainthood cause said. According to Fr Peter Gumpel, an official for the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, the accusations were taken very seriously but in the end turned out to be nothing more than false witness from people being an anti-Catholic agenda.
"She was a hypocrite for accepting heart surgery but doing nothing for the ill under her care."
This may be a result of not understanding what the Missionaries of Charity are about. First off, they never claimed they were nurses or doctors (but to be fair, they do receive some basic medical training) so clearly they're not trained or equipped to handle skilled medical procedures. Second, they are formed to care for people society in general have long ignored (and people I know for a fact atheists don't give a flip about).
Third, that heart surgery? It was just a pacemaker. There was nothing cutting-edge about it. Fourth, not caring for those in her order's care? That's not what witness have said...or any award committees who witnessed her care first hand.
-------
Ok..I've put this off for long enough...what about the accusations from Christopher Hitchens?
His are, believe it or not, the easiest to refute.
Why?
He never cites any sources.
That's right: He doesn't cite a single source for any of his accusations.
That quote where she supposedly thought it was beautiful for the poor to accept their lot? No source for this quote other than Hitchen's own book.
(And before anyone tries to claim otherwise, I put the quote in a citation search, and contrary to what Hitchens claims, NO press conference came up where she said this.)
His claim of being the only person invited by the Vatican to present a case against her?
1) He was NEVER invited by the Vatican.
2) He wasn't the only person to present a case.
His claim of actually interviewing her face to face? No one can collaborate that. In fact, there is NO proof this interview ever happened, and I looked on Google, the BBC, and on YouTube. When you can find clips of David Frost's interview with Richard Nixon, but no trace of this supposed interview...
...Then something's wrong. In fact, the only source of this information is Hitchen's own book, which once again does not cite any sources.
Then again, what else do you expect from a "journalist" (and in Hitchen's case, I use that term VERY loosely) who seems to have more fun making facts up then actually stating facts?
Face it, atheists: your collective ranting and raving at her in the end didn't mean anything. She's going to be remembered long after all of you are nothing more than dead and dust.
That's the price you pay for being such idiots.
No comments:
Post a Comment