. . . picks up the rice in a church where a wedding has been. / Lives in a dream, / wearing a face that he keeps just for Vanity Fair.
Ah, me. Christopher is an old acquaintance, and the most fluid writer around today, but some years ago he oddly decided to take the hackneyed pose of the journaliste maudit, a Robert G. Ingersoll for our time, bashing, like most everyone else in his world, the great juggernaut of God.
His latest seems to be a rant on the Dennis Miller show:
Mother Teresa spent her whole life saying [that what Calcutta needs] is a huge campaign against family planning. I mean, who comes to that conclusion who isn’t a complete fanatic? She took—and I would directly say stole . . . millions and millions of dollars and spent all the money not on the poor, but on the building of nearly 200 convents in her own name around the world to glorify herself and to continue to spread the doctrine that, as she put it—when she got her absurd Nobel Peace Prize—that the main threat to world peace is abortion and contraception. The woman was a fanatic and a fundamentalist and a fraud, and millions of people are much worse off because of her life, and it’s a shame there is no hell for your [w]itch to go to.
He’s attacked Mother Teresa before, of course, but this is so over the top—so bizarre and self-righteous, so offensively phrased and incoherently thought—that it’s hard to know quite how to take it.
As a plea for help, is my first guess.
November 2nd, 2009 | 7:02 pm
If what he says disturbs you, ask him to substantiate what he says, he will.
November 2nd, 2009 | 7:07 pm
Well it all seems very unremarkable to me. Fair enough. Can’t see anything wrong with it.
November 2nd, 2009 | 7:56 pm
It’s quite clear that Hitch isn’t an atheist at all. No one who actually believed there was no God could get so worked up about someone who devoted her life to helping the desperately poor half a world away. He is really, really angry at God . . . He’ll find peace someday.
November 2nd, 2009 | 8:32 pm
Here is a link to an even crazier rant by Dawkins:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/richard_dawkins/2009/10/give_us_your_misogynists_and_bigots.html
And here is a great reply that someone posted (same link):
Dear Professor Dawkins:
I find it curious that you, as an evolutionary biologist, devote so much of your time and energy to the public criticism of religion (in general) and the Catholic Church (in particular).
I find it especially curious that you have used your position as a scientist and author to make normative judgments about religion, a subject which you have never studied. Your disdain for religion reminds me of something that the like-minded Professor Stephen Pinker once told me; namely, that he thought the object of his criticism, religion, was unworthy of his serious consideration.
Certainly you can appreciate that this sort of rhetoric and “straw man” argument does not meet your exacting standards for logical academic inquiry. Rather, this sad polemic is the product of your personal ideology.
One might wonder why any media correspondent would consult someone who is clearly not an expert on religion or the Catholic Church on a delicate question of inter-denominational relations. The answer is obvious.
No one expects you, Professor Dawkins, to have a sensible or well-informed opinion on these matters. Rather, you have a reputation for being controversial and inflammatory, and you are consulted because it is understood that you will provide some measure of editorial entertainment. You provide the modern intellectual equivalent of the ancient Rome’s ‘panem et circenses.’
I imagine it must bring you great sadness to think that the meme (to use your word) of religious faith will endure long after your body has returned to dust. Consider that no matter how much you write or shout, with the passage of time your contribution to the human race will be of no more significance than the pitiful ruins of Shelley’s “Ozymandias.”
November 2nd, 2009 | 8:41 pm
We should all pray … and often … to/through the intercession of Mother Teresa for the conversion of Hitchens.
November 2nd, 2009 | 9:47 pm
There is this…
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/theanchoress/2007/09/26/a-madman-or-a-roman-catholic-the-difference/
November 2nd, 2009 | 9:56 pm
Given that many Hindus and Muslims in India praise Mother Teresa and came out for her funeral, I don’t see how it’s possible to claim she has had such a negative impact. Mother Teresa was not perfect, but she never claimed to be. She did, however do more than Hitchens has ever done to care for the poor. Long after Hitchens is forgotten, she and her work will be remembered by peoples of all faiths, including atheists. That fact, seems to be the very definition of hell for Hitchens.
November 3rd, 2009 | 2:36 am
Ok everyone listen up as I am only going to write this once. There is only ONE known solution to poverty. It is NOT charity. If charity solved poverty then there would be no poverty by now. The only solution to poverty is the emancipation and education of the women in that area. The necessary step of educating women and keeping them from being baby-making machines (at very young ages) is the only KNOWN solution for poverty. So anyone that is actually a crusader against poverty must use their time to directly help women in these matters. Let’s look at Mother Teresa.
Mother Teresa did a lot of Charity work, provided food, water, proselytized and encouraged Catholic dogma. Her major contention was that abortions and contraception’s were tools of the devil and they should not used. (uh-oh, I think some of you see where this is going already.)
So does telling young women to read the Bible (a dogma that naturally subjugates women), not use birth control and never get an abortion HELP the emancipation and education of women or does it HINDER the social progress of women?
Let’s recap. Charity: Futile. Mother Teresa did a lot of Charity.
Helping the social progress of women: Mother Teresa did not only not help the social progress of women she purposefully kept it stagnant by preaching dark age rhetoric to impoverished and credulous people.
Not only that but it was later discovered from her Diary and her letters to the Catholic church that she indeed to not feel God inside herself or in any of her actions. She was actually an atheist when it was all said and done.
So, she was an Atheist who preached Catholic values to impoverished people and endorsed values that inherently keep a society IN poverty (and the solve reason she is famous is that she spent her whole life FIGHTING poverty). Everyone understand Hitchens problem with her now?
November 3rd, 2009 | 9:32 am
Christopher Hitchens has long been my favorite Bolshie scrivener. The man is gifted with a withering wit employed with equal facility using tongue or pen. And yet, despite his pose as a hard man shaking his fist at God and the world, I get them impression he’s much like an egg, pretending to be hard boiled all the while knowing his shell will crumble at the first blow.
I sometimes wonder if underlying his putative hatred of Mother Theresa there is not a sense of shame at knowing she lived the life he ought to live, but does not; that her certitude was genuine while his is false bravado trying to mask debilitating uncertainty.
The romantic in me likes to think that inside the Hitchens shell, Malcom Muggeridge is struggling for re-birth.
November 3rd, 2009 | 9:35 am
Well if Mr. Hitchens gets his wish about the late Saint’s destiny in the next world, (which seems extremely unlikely), he will almost certainly be there to confront her with his criticism of her life.
Then again he might find himself at that point too busy with much more unpleasant matters to care anymore.
November 3rd, 2009 | 9:48 am
Mr. Hitchens’ God is not big enough to be small.
November 3rd, 2009 | 10:57 am
What a pity that a man of such intelligence is reduced to such mad lies. What exertions of torturous thought must have been required to see Saint Teresa in such a bizarre way! All in order to discredit and defame someone whose life he simply can’t understand. And to insult others who aren’t brilliant enough to share his insight that there is no God. What dark depravity.
November 3rd, 2009 | 11:06 am
Matt:
Wow. Not only do you completely misunderstand Mother Theresa’s words about her not feeling the presence of God for most of her vocational life (far from making her an atheist, it made her yearn all the more for Him, and seek to do His will), you present a woman destroying the child in her womb as “emancipating”. For your sake, I’m glad you decided to “only say this once”, as to not have a repeat performance of flaunting your ignorance so thoroughly.
Quite honestly, who on earth cares what Mr. Hitchens (or Mr. Dawkins or Mr. Dennett or Mr. Stenger or Mr. Harris, for that matter) have to say about God and/or the Church? Let them rant all they want – everyone needs a hobby, I suppose. Reading their screeds against Christianity is like reading yet another critique of the Pope by Richard McBrien: none of them have said anything remotely credible – or even interesting – on either subject in years.
November 3rd, 2009 | 11:16 am
I have several conservative Catholic friends who are also friends of Mr. Hitchens. They think he is a fine fellow on the whole and seem to regard it as something of a mystery that he says such vile and (frankly) asinine things all the time. Some of them hazard the guess that he is actually desperately searching for God. Well, I have the great pleasure of NOT knowing Mr. Hitchens, and so perhaps I see things more clearly than they. Isn’t it barely possible — and I only advance this in the spirit of the wildest speculation — that Hitchens is actually exactly what he appears to be, a scoundrel? I recommend that people reread the scathing response of Robert Louis Stevenson to the Rev. Hyde, a man who indulged in the same sport as Hitchens, namely casually calumniating from the comfort of his parlour persons who devote their lives to serving the poor in the most wretched of circumstances. Hitchens strikes me as an utterly frivolous man, or rather adolescent, who seems not to grasp that his words may have serious consequences for the spiritual state of himself and others.
November 3rd, 2009 | 12:04 pm
This man is angry. His anger caused him to be sick. He needs therapy.
Tony Cassar
November 3rd, 2009 | 12:42 pm
Well, my post got edited I think completely unreasonably (and I don’t know if this more oblique post will survive or not), but in the “…” I posited a very common theory for why exactly Mr. Hitchens is so angry with God (I suspect Mr. Bottom thinks it is slander to psychoanalyze his friend, who by accounts I’ve read gets very, very angry when this common theory is floated). Those who don’t know can probably find out pretty easily by looking at his biography. It’s not all that shocking to see his actions once you know what he’s gone through, just like it wouldn’t be shocking if Roman Polanski were to write similar screeds. But I think it’s actually hopeful if you can view him as being motivated by anger, rather than someone like Mr. Dawkins who appears to be motivated more by pride that he is smarter than everyone else and therefore has contempt for believers. Anger fades away and can be dealt with much more easily.
November 3rd, 2009 | 2:41 pm
GeronimoRumplestiltskin:
Ok so not only did you not address all of the issues i brought up, but the ones you did address you argued very poorly.
(side note)Abortion: Find me ONE passage in the Bible that says life starts at the moment of conception. After you fail at that. I want you to find me the passage in the Bible that says where life is……i’ll give you the answer…the Bible says life is in the blood (thats why they always sacrificed animals and other humans in the Old testament). So, a little Biology lesson for you. When does the baby have its own heart beat and thus its OWN blood life? 3 weeks. So EVEN if you want to take the pro-life route (for religious reasons), a women still has 3 weeks (according to your theology) to terminate the pregnancy before she takes a life.
Now, what i SAID was the emancipation and education of women coincides DIRECTLY with women realizing that they are not baby making machines. And when you tell women to not use contraception, that abortions are wrong and you don’t EDUCATE them then that hinders the social progress of women. Does it not? I’m not advocating for abortion, i’m asking to educate women. This is something mother Teresa did not do. She made matters worse.
As far as her letters go. Please go read them. The Catholic Church told her that her suffering was bringing her closer to God, SHE felt otherwise.
And next time when you want to challenge me please take each of my points one by one and debunk them as I have just done with your arguments. You can’t say I’m wrong, give 2 horrible reasons why and then think you are in the right.
Start here to prove me wrong: Please show how mother teresa helped the education and emancipation of women in Calcutta.
Good luck.
November 3rd, 2009 | 2:46 pm
I could be wrong, but Hitchens is displaying the classic telltale signs of someone who is about to be converted. At their most furious selves men have been known to finally surrender to the truth. The Apostle Paul is a good case in point. We must continue to pray for him and others like him. God may be very near by.
November 5th, 2009 | 12:58 am
[...] A First Thoughts reader, in response to Hitchen’s latest pathetic diatribe against Blessed Mother Teresa of [...]
November 5th, 2009 | 8:04 am
Now why do Hitchens and his defenders assume that opposition to abortion and artificial contraception means condemning women to be “baby making machines”?
Are they assuming that 1) women cannot control their sexual desires for any reason (which rules out natural family planning), 2) they cannot say “no” to any man who demands sex from them, 3) they cannot choose not to marry, or 4) all of the above?
If Hitchens’ assumption is that women in Indian culture are forced to marry and submit to sexual exploitation against their will, which means their only recourse against becoming “baby making machines” is to go on the Pill or to abort their babies when their oppressive chauvinistic husbands aren’t looking (good luck with that) — then doesn’t this seem to indicate there’s a bit of a problem with the MEN involved?
November 5th, 2009 | 1:35 pm
Elaine-
1) I did not say that the women in Calcutta should go on the pill or abort babies.
2) What I did say is that BY NOT EDUCATING THEM in these areas they are more likely to become baby making machines…thus creating more poverty.
3) Are you ACTUALLY going to argue that a group of women who are educated about sex/safe sex are MORE likely to get pregnant than women who are not educated and simply told that contraception and abortions are the worlds greatest ill? I hope this is not what you think.
4) Let’s assume you are right and it IS A PROBLEM WITH THE MEN. Well the dogma that Mother Teresa was preaching teaches that women should be submissive to men, yes? (I’m assuming you’ve read the Bible). So again, not only is she NOT EDUCATING WOMEN, she is ACTUALLY preaching a gospel that keeps them submissive.
Women can’t make the rational choices you described in your second paragraph if they are not educated in these matters first.
November 5th, 2009 | 3:29 pm
Yeah! Go on the pill and have abortions, so instead of being “baby-making machines,” women can be sex machines – satisfying men’s desires and being objects of lust only to be used. Oh – and love the “safe sex” cliche. I type medical charts for a living – OBGYN to be exact. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SAFE SEX!!!! If I had a nickel for every women who I typed about who was crying in the doc’s office over the fact that she now is pregnant or has some disease, DESPITE THE FACT THAT SHE USED A CONDOM, I would be a rich woman! And there is so much confusion about the Bible and women! Have you read the New Testament? Have you read about the radical, in-your-face, countercultural way that Jesus treated women??? The respect He gave them? If all men treated women the way Jesus treated women, there would be no problem at all!
November 5th, 2009 | 3:47 pm
Matt,
What I did say is that BY NOT EDUCATING THEM in these areas they are more likely to become baby making machines…thus creating more poverty.
So this is why China has no poverty? I believe that a family is allowed ONE child, far from “baby making machines”. I know, I know; China is a communist state and that hinders their prosperity but the government strictly controls population (through state mandated contraception and abortion) and there is still poverty.
Are you ACTUALLY going to argue that a group of women who are educated about sex/safe sex are MORE likely to get pregnant than women who are not educated and simply told that contraception and abortions are the worlds greatest ill? I hope this is not what you think.
I will admit that I don’t precisely know what is taught but I seriously doubt that they are simply told “don’t ever use artificial contraception and never have an abortion” and sent on their way. I am eager to hear your insight as to what EXACTLY is taught to the women in Calcutta in regards to contraception.
Let’s assume you are right and it IS A PROBLEM WITH THE MEN. Well the dogma that Mother Teresa was preaching teaches that women should be submissive to men, yes? (I’m assuming you’ve read the Bible). So again, not only is she NOT EDUCATING WOMEN, she is ACTUALLY preaching a gospel that keeps them submissive.
I guess that is YOUR interpretation of the bible. I know that many people like to see this but it has never been taught that way to me. Not to mention the fact that the Dogma of the Catholic Church does not include that women are submissive to men. If you would like to check here is a link to The Roman Catholic Church Dogmas: http://www.theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm
Now going back to your first post:
Not only that but it was later discovered from her Diary and her letters to the Catholic church that she indeed to not feel God inside herself or in any of her actions. She was actually an atheist when it was all said and done.
(from time.com)
The church anticipates spiritually fallow periods. Indeed, the Spanish mystic St. John of the Cross in the 16th century coined the term the “dark night” of the soul to describe a characteristic stage in the growth of some spiritual masters. Teresa’s may be the most extensive such case on record. (The “dark night” of the 18th century mystic St. Paul of the Cross lasted 45 years; he ultimately recovered.) Yet Kolodiejchuk sees it in St. John’s context, as darkness within faith. Teresa found ways, starting in the early 1960s, to live with it and abandoned neither her belief nor her work. Kolodiejchuk (Come Be My Light’s editor and her postulator, responsible for petitioning for her sainthood and collecting the supporting materials) produced the book as proof of the faith-filled perseverance that he sees as her most spiritually heroic act.
Both Kolodiejchuk and Rev Matthew Martin(chairman of the theology department at the conservative Ave Maria University in Florida) assume that Teresa’s inability to perceive Christ in her life did not mean he wasn’t there. In fact, they see his absence as part of the divine gift that enabled her to do great work
Meanwhile, some familiar with the smiling mother’s extraordinary drive may diagnose her condition less as a gift of God than as a subconscious attempt at the most radical kind of humility: she punished herself with a crippling failure to counterbalance her great successes.
(Source: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655415,00.html#ixzz0W18njcRn )
It is hard to see God’s plan, especially when we are trying to see God’s plan for us.
November 5th, 2009 | 6:49 pm
In Mother Teresa’s famous 1994 address to the National Prayer Breakfast — in which she said that “the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion” — she ALSO said this:
“I know that couples have to plan their family and for that there is natural family planning. The way to plan the family is natural family planning, not contraception. In destroying the power of giving life, of loving; through contraception, a husband or wife is doing something to self. This turns the attention to self and so it destroys the gift of love in him or her. In loving, the husband and wife must turn the attention to each other as happens in natural family planning, and not to self, as happens in contraception. Once that living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily.
“That is why I never give a child to a family that has used contraception, because if the mother has destroyed the power of loving, how will she love my child? I also know there are great problems in the world, that many spouses do not love each other enough to practice natural family planning. We cannot solve the problems in the world, but let us never bring in the worst problem of all, to destroy love, to destroy life.
“The poor are very great people. They can teach us so many beautiful things. Once one of them came to thank us for teaching her natural family planning and said: “You people who have practiced chastity, you are the best people to teach us natural family planning because it is nothing more than self-control out of love for each other.” And what this poor person said is very true. These poor people maybe have nothing to eat, maybe they have not a home to live in, but they can still be great people when they are spiritually rich.”
November 5th, 2009 | 6:56 pm
Another relevant quote from the Prayer Breakfast speech:
“How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world.
“Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion. ”
Note her emphasis on the fact that FATHERS must take responsibility for the children they take part in conceiving, and that abortion simply relieves the father of that responsibility. Does that sound like a chauvinistic “women must submit to men, no matter what” point of view?
Also, don’t forget that the Bible is NOT the sole source or authority for Catholic faith — “sola scriptura” was Luther’s idea! The Catholic Church also bases its teachings on Sacred Tradition, which provides the context in which the Bible is interpreted. So to toss around isolated Bible quotes out of context as “proof” of what the Catholic Church teaches seems a bit disingenuous.
November 6th, 2009 | 10:52 am
The facts about the woman’s “achievements” are well-enough documented by now. The problem is, most people seem to want to stick to the “saint” myth and don’t bother.
As for the “if X gets so worked up about religion/God/Catholicism/whatever, then he must be a closet believer” theory: Come on, folks, try again. That’s like saying that anyone who gets angry about crime must be a criminal himself.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact