Bulldog and the Rude Show, My Interview on WOCM-FM 98.1 in Ocean City, MD

On Monday, Dec. 1, 2008, I was invited to be on the Bulldog and The Rude Awakening Show at 9:40am for a 10 minute interview. I when on at 9:43am and was off by 9:47am. What happened!? It seems that David Rothner (Bulldog) did not the subject of my book. I can image that many radio hosts have on guests who present subjects that are not their cup of tea. Still, those hosts hear the guest out as a matter of professional courtesy unless the guest is behaving in an unprofessional manner. Nowhere in the four minutes and seventeen seconds that I was on the air did I give cause to be cut off. It was Mr. Rothner’s responsibility to look over the guests the producer booked and any information associated with those guests. This he obviously did not do. That Mr. Rothner could not endure a polite guest explaining basic Christian doctrine for 10 minutes demonstrates an intolerance and an unprofessionalism that astounds me. I was trying to move on to points relating to psychology and sociology when Mr. Rothner ended the interview.

Judge for yourself if I did anything wrong.

Mother Teresa: Saint or Celebrity?

Marking 20th anniversary of its foundation the Faculty of the Sciences of Communication is organizing a conference by Dr. Gezim Alpion on his book Mother Teresa: Saint or Celebrity at the Salesian Pontifical University Rome.

The conference scheduled for Thursday 20th November will be in English with Italian translation. Open to all, the program will start at 4.30 pm and will conclude at 6.45 pm.

Mother Teresa of Calcutta was undoubtedly one of the great personalities of the twentieth century. The author explores her significance to the mass media, to celebrity culture, to the church and to various political and national groups.

Albanian born Gezim Alpion currently director of Research Postgraduate Studies, Department of Sociology (Birmingham University) received a PhD from the University of Durham, UK, in 1997. His works include Vouchers (2001), Foreigner Complex (2002), If Only the Dead Could Listen (2006), and Encounters with Civilizations (2008).


My Comment:

I have not read this book but the title is provocative enough. It would be fun to go to the conference but I cannot afford the travel expenses. I read the reviews on Amazon and the book does not seem all that unique in substance.

Mother Teresa and the 2008 Election

It seems that Mother Teresa has found the 2008 presidential election so important that she going to make an endorsement (from the grave). So many people ask me why they should care if Mother Teresa is thought of as a Saint. The article below is another example to add to the pile. So much for W.W.J.D? (What Would Jesus Do?) The new slogan is W.W.M.T.D? (What Would Mother Teresa Do?).

Who Would Mother Teresa Endorse - McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden?


Mother Teresa died September 5, 1997, but if she were alive today, the following might have happened:

John McCain and Sarah Palin sat on one side of the conference table, and Barack Obama and Joseph Biden sat opposite them on the other side. No other people were in the small hotel meeting room. There was no small-talk amongst the four. Their eyes were focused on a side door.

Then, Mother Teresa walked through the door and made her way to the head of the table. The four people stood and introductions were made all around. Mother Teresa motioned for the group to sit down.

“Thanks for coming today,” she said. They nodded.

“As you know, I have decided to endorse a candidate for president of the United States in the 2008 election. A formal announcement will be made at a press conference later this afternoon. But I felt it was important to personally let you know my decision ahead of time,” she said. Nervous smiles revealed the tensions felt by each politician.

Mother Teresa slowly looked around the table. “I am endorsing John McCain and Sarah Palin.”

McCain and Palin blew out deep sighs of relief. Their faces lit up. “Thank you, Mother Teresa,” said McCain.

“But Mother?” said Barack Obama in a disappointed voice.

“Yes, Senator Obama.”

Obama shrugged. “I don’t get it,” he said. “Just like you, I have worked with poor people and the have-not’s all my life. So, why did you choose McCain and Palin over Joe and me?”

“Senator, your words have encouraged thousands of people, but I am not moved by a politician’s words,” she said. “I study their actions and their votes before I -”

“But I have - ” Obama interrupted her. Mother Teresa raised her hand and Obama nodded his head. “Sorry, Mother,” he said.

“My life and ministry is dedicated to helping and caring for ‘the least of these’ among us, just as Jesus commanded us in Matthew 25.” Tears streamed down her face. “And who are ‘the least of these’, right?”

Mother Teresa turned to Sarah Palin and touched her face with a gnarled finger. “Unborn babies, and especially Down Syndrome babies.”

And the King will answer and say to them, “Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.” (Matthew 25:40)

An Open Letter to Pope Benedict XVI Regarding the Cause for Canonization of Mother Teresa of Calcutta

Today is the eleventh anniversary of the death of Mother Teresa of Calcutta. With the publishing of her private writings, on the same date last year, a more intense interest in her life arose. Below is an open letter I recently sent to Pope Benedict XVI. Also, the letter was sent to the Catholic bishops, Catholic media, and the media here and abroad.

"Fiat justitia ruat caelum."

Thank you for your consideration,

Mark M. Zima
--author of Mother Teresa: The Case for The Cause

An Open Letter to Pope Benedict XVI
Regarding the Cause for Canonization of Mother Teresa of Calcutta


Your Holiness:

One year ago, on the tenth anniversary of her death, Fr. Kolodiejchuk released Mother Teresa’s private letters. Since their release, her letters have led to a global questioning of her spiritual state. The popular interpretation of her words, by Catholics, is that she experienced the dark night of the soul. Those who hold that position base it on the presupposition that she was holy. Therefore, her “dark night” is interpreted as a true sanctifying dark night of a Saint. But is their judgment correct?

Before her community was approved, in her letters, Mother Teresa declares, “There are millions who live in Indian cities and villages in ignorance of God and of Christ, in abominable sinfulness. We shall bring them to Christ and Christ to them” (Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light, 116). But when her community was approved, she taught, “I convert you to be a better Hindu, a better Catholic, Muslim, Jain, or Buddhist” (Mother Teresa: The Case for The Cause, 4). There are some who argue that she did not mean what she said and she wanted to convert those she met. There is some truth to their claim. Nevertheless, her words are misleading to the hearer and the reader.

Mother Teresa said, “We never try to convert those who receive [aid from Missionaries of Charity] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God’s presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men—simply better—we will be satisfied” (Mother Teresa: The Case for The Cause, 47). In 1990, she spoke at the Vatican. She told an audience of priests, “We call baptism the ticket for St. Peter. She said, “Not one has died without the ticket for St. Peter. We call baptism the ticket for St. Peter because He [God] won’t let them go to heaven without that ticket” (Mother Teresa: The Case for The Cause, 126). Clearly, Mother Teresa was not “satisfied” that these people did not “convert.”

Mother Teresa wanted to preach, “The Kingdom must be preached to all” (Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light, 133). But the kingdom she preached was, “I love all religions but I am in love with my own. If people become better Hindus, better Muslims, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there. They come closer and closer to God. When they come closer, they have to choose” (Mother Teresa: The Case for The Cause, 47).

Contradiction was a state of life for Mother Teresa. She was afraid of the loss of souls, “Souls are being lost in the slums and in the streets, the Sacred Heart of Jesus is more and more suffering—and here I am waiting” (Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light, 119). But she taught, “When we die we are going to be with God, and with all those we have known who have gone before us; our family and our friends will be there waiting for us. Heaven must be a beautiful place” (Mother Teresa: The Case for The Cause, 115). The first rule of the Missionaries of Charity was to instruct in ”Christian Doctrine” the poor, the abandoned, the sick, the infirmed, and the dying (Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light, 139). Did she teach ”Christian Doctrine” when she taught, “I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic” (Mother Teresa: The Case for The Cause, 29)?

Mother Teresa said, “There is so much contradiction in my soul.—Such deep longing for God—so deep that it is painful—a suffering continual—and yet not wanted by God—repulsed—empty—no faith—no love—no zeal” (Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light, 169-70). Sad words, but what in these words forces the reader to conclude that Mother Teresa suffered through the dark night of the soul? If the reader interprets these words of Mother Teresa to the exclusion of all that she said and did they are demonstrating their bias not Mother Teresa’s dark night. The Church’s teaching regarding the dark night of the soul is being distorted by many who think it is a suffering of any kind.

In his book, The Dark Night of The Soul, St. John of the Cross taught, “This dark night is an inflowing of God into the soul, which purges it from its ignorances and imperfections, habitual natural and spiritual, and which is called by contemplatives infused contemplation, or mystical theology. Herein God secretly teaches the soul and instructs it in perfection of love without its doing anything, or understanding of what manner is this infused contemplation. Inasmuch as it is the loving wisdom of God, God produces striking effects in the soul for, by purging and illumining it, He prepares it for the union of love with God. Wherefore the same loving wisdom that purges the blessed spirits and enlightens them is that which here purges the soul and illumines it” (bk. II, ch. 5, sec. 1).

Are the faithful being asked to believe that a Saint teaches ”Christian Doctrine” when they “help” a “Hindu become a better Hindu”? Are the faithful being asked to believe that Mother Teresa was purged and illuminated by God to “convert” Buddhists into “better” Buddhists? Was Mother Teresa purged from essential “ignorances and imperfections” relating to the faith?

In his book, Ascent of Mount Carmel, St. John of the Cross also taught, “Two contraries (even as philosophy teaches us) cannot coexist in one person; and that darkness, which is affection set upon the creatures, and light, which is God, are contrary to each other, and have no likeness or accord between one another, even as Saint Paul taught the Corinthians, saying: ‘Quoe conventio luci ad tenebras?’ That is to say: ‘What communion can there be between light and darkness?’ Hence it is that the light of Divine union cannot dwell in the soul if these affections first flee not away from it. In order that we may the better prove what has been said, it must be known that the affection and attachment which the soul has for creatures renders the soul like to these creatures; and, the greater is its affection, the closer is the equality and likeness between them; for love creates a likeness between that which loves and that which is loved” (Quoted in Mother Teresa: The Case for The Cause, 175).

“Two contraries cannot coexist in one person.” Mother Teresa’s statements are not paradoxical; they are contradictory. The Church and the world should praise Mother Teresa’s corporal works of mercy, but if St. John of the Cross or any other Saint read the above quoted words of Mother Teresa do you believe that they would conclude that her words were those of a Saint who experienced the dark night of the soul (Mother Teresa: The Case for The Cause, 24)? Mother Teresa said, “If there is hell—this must be one. How terrible it is to be without God—no prayer—no faith—no love” (Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light, 250). Do you believe that the Saints would find this quote indicative of a Saint who experienced the dark night of the soul or a soul who experienced a dark night?

In canonizing, the Church seeks to honor “the holy and undivided Trinity,” exalt “the Catholic faith,” and cultivate “the Christian religion.” The candidate for canonization must be someone who possessed and demonstrated heroic faith, hope, love, prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. How were these virtues heroically fulfilled by Mother Teresa?

I am aware that you have a great respect for Mother Teresa (Deus Caritas Est, 18, 36, 40) and I am aware that what I am saying may be causing you some pain, but I beg you to reflect on this letter before our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Please ask yourself, “If anyone else who was not Mother Teresa said and did these things, what would I think? How would I respond?”

St. Thomas Aquinas said, “the lover is not satisfied with a superficial apprehension of the beloved, but strives to gain an intimate knowledge of everything pertaining to the beloved, so as to penetrate into his very soul” (Summ. Theol., la. 2ae., q. 28, a. 2). Accordingly, anyone who loves Mother Teresa cannot desire to represent her other than who she really was. The proper interpretation of Mother Teresa’s true spiritual reality is the next step in the story of a woman who has become a religious icon for the Church and the world. I believe that you will conclude that the common presupposition of Mother Teresa’s “dark night” must give way to a new interpretation of her person.

Mother Teresa’s cause is complex because it is a high-profile case. For this reason, it is imperative her case is settled promptly, so that the errors surrounding her life are ended and scandal abated. Silence does not save souls but it will lead them astray. Failure to act now ensures a more difficult case for the Church to correct in the future. If Mother Teresa is a Saint, no one can take away the canonization God has already bestowed upon her. However, if she is not a Saint, then those who love her must expose the truth so multitudes do not pray for her intercession, but instead intercede for her soul.


Your son in the faith,

Mark M. Zima
author of Mother Teresa: The Case for The Cause

“Why does it matter if I believe Mother Teresa is a Saint?”

“Why does it matter if I believe Mother Teresa is a Saint?”

The reasons are different for a Christian than a non-Christian, but both Christians and non-Christians share some principles relating to this subject.

1. A standard for their worldview
a. A standard of right and wrong they apply to themselves.
b. A standard of right and wrong they apply to others.

2. The affect of public opinion
a. Both Christians and non-Christians recognize the affect that public opinion can have on themselves and those around them.

The principles applied to the non-Christian.

Why is it so that a professed Catholic Sister is believed by most non-Christians as a saint of God? What is the common root that a non-Christian has with Mother Teresa? I argue in my book that the non-Christian perceived Mother Teresa sharing his or her work and the worldview on two levels.

1. She practiced the corporal works of mercy.
a. Feeding the hungry, Giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, Harboring the homeless, Visiting the sick, Ransoming the captive, and Burying the dead.

2. She did what she thought was right.

By these standards, Mother Teresa did not want to be judged. Even so, if a poll were taken these would be the reasons why her name is a household word for saint.

If a non-Christian found out that Mother Teresa did not follow the standards they thought she practiced so faithfully, would it matter to the non-Christian? Do lies concern non-Christians? It is for this reason that some non-Christians do not regard Mother Teresa as a saint.

Suppose for a moment that a non-Christian discovered that Mother Teresa did not practice what she preached and did not follow what she thought was right but most of the world was deceived by her. If true, would this discovery disturb most non-Christians? The answer is clearly yes. Hypothetically, if Mother Teresa did not practice what she preached the following would apply and should concern a non-Christian:

1. She is held up as a model person to emulate.
2. Millions of dollars are given to her community yearly to perpetuate her work.
3. Children and adults and encouraged to learn more about her words and works which have led some non-Christians to embrace them.
4. When men adopt a certain ethic, they apply that ethic to all areas of their lives and Mother Teresa can influence the living from the grave, for example, Eileen Egan in her book, Such a Vision of the Street: Mother Teresa-The Spirit and the Work (p. 414) tells a story of a interviewer asking Mother Teresa about just war. The interviewer asked, “Your Church teaches there can be a just war.” Mother Teresa shook her head in the negative. “I can’t understand it,” she said. The interviewer continued, “Catholics have to believe that teaching.” Mother Teresa looked at the interviewer with a vehemence rare to her and asked him, “Then I am not a Catholic?”
5. She would be a fraud.
6. The moral she taught the world was the end justifies the means.
7. The message she sent the world is there is no right and wrong, a person can do wrong in the name of what is right to get what they believe is right.

The principles applied to the Christian.

I believe Mother Teresa practiced the corporal works of mercy but did not follow her conscience. I argue in my book that Mother Teresa’s work and the worldview are very different than the Christian. First principles for right and wrong for the Christian starts with the word of God. The Catholics and Orthodox follow the oral and written word of God. The Protestant follows only the written. All agree that if Mother Teresa’s faith was the following, she was not a practicing Christian.

1. Her gospel was not Christian.
2. The god she worshipped was not God.
3. She practiced the corporal works of mercy but not the spiritual works of mercy.
a. Counseling the doubtful, Instructing the ignorant, Admonishing the sinner, Comforting the afflicted, Forgiving offenses, Bearing wrongs patiently, and Praying for the living and the dead.
4. She is held up by Catholics and non-Catholics as the model Christian in belief and practice.
5. The world believes she was the model Christian in faith and morals.
6. Christians trying to evangelize the world today are judged and compared to her words and deeds.
7. Because she so exalted as an archetypal Christian, she defines Christianity and Christians in her image.
8. She is redefining the word saint in her image.
9. She made meaningless the life and death of her professed Lord.
10. She undermined the fall, the sin nature of man, the necessity of faith for union God, and the true nature of holiness.

“Why does it matter if I believe Mother Teresa is a Saint?”

You have your answer but what you do with it will say more about your character than Mother Teresa’s.

Fr. Angelo's Straw Man II

Point Two:

“I do not attack Pope John Paul II in my book but actually use his teachings as a defense of my position.”

I do indict the Congregation for The Causes of Saints in my book for not doing its job and many have complained that since the revisions of the canonization process (Divinus Perfectionis Magister) there is question if some individuals were granted the titles of Blessed and Saint through a flawed and bias process. In the minds of these Catholics, an infallible assurance that the canonized is a Saint cannot be held if the Church ordained process has not been applied. I am not arguing the virtues or vices of their position at this time but I am arguing that Mother Teresa’s virtues and vices exclude her from canonization. I am morally bound to hope for her salvation. Equally, I am morally bound to hope that she is not canonized.

In chapter one of my book, I quote the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

Canon 212 § 2—The Christian faithful are free to make known their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires to the pastors of the Church.

Canon 212 § 3—In accord with the knowledge, competence and preeminence which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard for the integrity of the faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons.

Pope John Paul II promulgated this code of canon law. I am following these canons, Fr. Angelo is not.

In chapter two of my book, I quote Pope John Paul II and offer a challenge:

Man is no longer convinced that only in the truth can he find salvation (Veritatis Splendor, 84).

I offer this challenge:

“Did Mother Teresa believe and consistently teach that only in truth can man find salvation?”

How did I go against the pope in using the pope to make my arguments?

Fr. Angelo's Straw Man I

Point one:

Fr. Angelo assumes any action taken by the Holy Father’s subordinates and rubber-stamped by him is an action that cannot be questioned by the faithful.

Let us expand upon on what I said in “Sandal to me or scandal to you?”. Whom do you think appointed most of the bishops, archbishops, and cardinals who moved priests around and turned a blind eye to the corruption of the youth? If you guessed Pope John Paul II, you are correct. This is the moral problem of evil applied to the office of the papacy.

The moral problem of evil is built on the view that there is an all-powerful and sovereign God who directs the universe. “How a good God could allow evil?” atheists argue to discount God. What the atheists fail to consider is that if there is no God there is no evil. The point is evident when reversed. The details surrounding the moral problem of evil are vast and not part of this post. Confusion on this issue resides in a misunderstanding of creation, the fall, free agency, and mystified metaphysics. There is evil and God is not its author, Satan is (I John 3:8). However, God (Causa Prima) directs all things (Causa Secundae) to serve His sovereign will (Vatican I, Dz 1784).

The moral problem of evil merited response from God (Job 38) and Church (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I, 49, 2). However, this problem does not apply to the papacy unless you think the pope has the power of God and is the first cause who directs all secondary causes in the Church. Sadly, such a view is unconsciously common among today’s Catholics. The hierarchy are unconscious of giving themselves divine attributes and the laity are unconscious of giving the hierarchy divine attributes.

If you consistently apply Fr. Angelo’s position you would lay all that has gone wrong in the Church over the last 40+ years at the feet of the popes. Much of the evils in the Church are the sins of the councilor and post-councilor popes, but not everything. This also explains why there was such a loss of faith after the Church fell into hard times. In the laity’s minds, the hierarchy was the faith. When the hierarchy changes, so does the faith. There is nothing divine about such a faith. Here again, Fr. Angelo’s doctrine is philosophically and theologically un-Catholic.

On the practical side, Fr. Angelo’s argument shows a gross misunderstanding on how the Church operates. When a pope makes an appointment of bishop or some office in the curia he does not micro-manage the decisions of his officers. If the prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints recommends that so-and-so be beatified, the pope does not personally research all the details of the case, he just accepts the decision of the prefect. To question a rubber-stamp act of the pope is not to “express…opinions contrary to the teaching of the Holy Father.”

Fr. Angelo’s Straw Man

In the science of informal logic there is a fallacy known as “the straw man fallacy.” A person commits the straw man fallacy when he or she misrepresents their opponent's position intentially or unintentially.

Fr. Angelo made this accusation:

“I am sorry that you, a Catholic, have chosen a public forum like this to express your opinions contrary to the teaching of the Holy Father.”

Fr. Angelo whole argument is that my book is an opinion “contrary to the teaching of the Holy Father.” Fr. Angelo’s assertion is fallacious for the following reasons:

1. Fr. Angelo assumes any action taken by the Holy Father’s subordinates and rubber-stamped by him is an act that cannot be questioned by the faithful.

2. I do not attack Pope John Paul II in my book but actually use his teachings as a defense of my position.

3. The reason why there is a canonization process (Servant of God, Blessed, Saint) is so there is not a mistake in canonizing someone who is not fit for the title. Fr. Angelo is treating Mother Teresa as a canonized Saint not as a candidate for canonization.

4. No Catholic scholar since the canonization process started in the Catholic Church ever argued that anything short of canonization was an infallible act the Roman Pontiff. Mother Teresa has not been canonized so the act of beatifying her was not an infallible act.

I will expand on each point in the next blog.

Scandal to me or scandal to you?

Fr. Angelo responded:

Mark,

I do not find your words painful, and I should hope that others do not. I am sorry that you, a Catholic, have chosen a public forum like this to express your opinions contrary to the teaching of the Holy Father.

No one who reads his response can believe that he is being honest when he said, "I do not find your words painful, and I should hope that others do not." Anytime any Catholic holds "opinions contrary to the teaching of the Holy Father" all Catholics should find such an act painful regardless which side they believe is correct.

What I find very troubling about Fr. Angelo's response is that he seems to have learned nothing from the pedophile scandal this decade. For example, Fr. Angelo ends his post by accusing me of creating "scandal." He also said:

Even if there were a basis for your contention, which I do not for a second grant, then responsible, humble and qualified theologians whose consciences were so convicted should, according to the proper domain of their mandate, discuss this within scholarly and magisterial circles.

I wonder if Fr. Angelo would tell someone who claimed to be molested by a priest that he or she would be creating scandal if he or she went public with his or her story. Would he tell them, "Even if there were a basis for your contention, which I do not for a second grant, then responsible, humble, and qualified bishops whose consciences were so convicted should, according to the proper domain of their mandate, discuss this within scholarly and magisterial circles"?

The doctrine that Fr. Angelo holds is what caused the pedophile scandal in the first place. Pray, pay, and obey was force fed Catholics for generations as a response to Protestants. No one questioned the priest because the bishop appointed him. No one questioned the bishop because the pope appointed him. No one questioned the pope because God appointed him. Therefore, if a Catholic questioned the priest he or she was enviably questioning God. Sadly, a practice that was created to protect souls became the instrument of their harm. In addition, it has kept many a Protestant out of the Church and added fuel to their fire against the Church because the doctrine is not biblical, nor supported by history. Also, it was just such a doctrine of false obedience that led to the wide scale dissent after Vatican II.

Fr. Angelo holds the pray, pay, and obey doctrine and sees someone like myself as professing, "rogue opinions to the faithful in the pews contrary to the teaching of the Holy Father." What happened to our new practice of “transparency”?

What we have here is not just a dispute about Mother Teresa's cause for canonization. It is a dispute about what it means to be a Catholic. Fr. Angelo represents a model of the Church as a dictatorship--the pope as Holy Furor. I represent a model of the Church as a family--the pope as Holy Father. You cannot question the furor but you can question your father. The Church is a dynastic succession of one father to another passing on a faith. If the father of the family fails to hand on what grandpa told him the grandkids and the children of the family have the right and the duty to speak up to dad and ask him to explain. The faith is not the property of the father; he is only the caretaker of the faith. So, he has no right or authority to bark out orders of obedience based on the faith if he is in disobedience to the faith.

Pope St. Gregory said:

“If people are scandalized at the truth, it is better to allow the birth of scandal, than to abandon the truth (Hom. Super Ezech. vii).”

Is what I have said scandal to you or scandal to me

more in the next post

The Marian Dimension of Mother Teresa’s Dark Night « Mary Victrix

The Marian Dimension of Mother Teresa’s Dark Night « Mary Victrix

I am going to run an ongoing blog about this page. It is a good representation of the kind of responses I receive from certain "Catholics." At present, there are priests and bishops reading my book. I have friends who are priests. They are priests of all different backgrounds. All of them believe the priest and on this website, Fr. Angelo, is not well.

After Fr. Angelo definitely stated that he did not want any more posts, I asked a friend of mine, who is a parish priest, to look at Fr. Angelo’s comments and give me his opinion if I should let Fr. Angelo know that he was destroying a “straw man.” The priest responded by telling me, I choose my words carefully, not to waste my pearls. I say this not to be mean but to show that Fr. Angelo’s opinion is not the dogma of the priests, and the priests I know feel very strongly that Fr. Angelo is fatally flawed in his opinion.

Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's enemies shall be they of his own household.

These are the words of Jesus (Mt. 10:34-36). It is not my expressed desire for conflict but if conflict comes to the Church because of my book’s fidelity to the Gospel, I welcome the conflict.

The rhetorically ruff exchange on Fr. Angelo’s webpage started when I came across his blog. I know Fr. Angelo personally but have not spoken with him in 5 years. I have lived with his community (Franciscans of the Immaculate) and even thought about joining them. I did not join them because they seemed to have the veneer of Traditional Catholicism but lacked the substance thereof.

Fr. Angelo posted:

Not so long ago, with the publication of Blessed Mother Teresa’s letters to her spiritual director much misinformation was disseminated about her “dark night,” namely, that is Mother had lost her faith. The arch-atheist, Christopher Hitchen’s and other anti-Catholic enthusiasts were quick to vilify this holy woman, whose trial should be a source of edification.

Recently Zenit interviewed Missionary of Charity Father Joseph Langford, cofounder with Mother Teresa of her community of priests, the Missionaries of Charity Fathers, about his new book Mother Teresa: In the Shadow of Our Lady.

Blessed Teresa, like Our Lady, took the road to Jerusalem in obedience to Jesus: Unless you pick up your cross and carry it, you cannot be my disciple. Perseverance in the dark night of faith is spiritual chivalry, spiritual prowess and largess, and in the case of Mother Teresa, it is an extension of the Marian Way of Beauty.

One cannot argue with likes of a blasphemer like Hitchens. In an debate between him and Bill Donahue of the Catholic League he referred to the faith-based defense of Mother as “white noise.” All we can do is say to Hitchens is “come and see.” His only hope is the Way of Beauty . . . and of course, prayer and fasting. Here is an excerpt of the Zenit interview with Father Langford:

Q: What did you learn about the Blessed Mother from Mother Teresa?

Father Langford: The book is a compendium of what I learned of Our Lady over the years, from watching and listening to this Saint of the Gutters. It is a simple apologia for Our Lady’s role, wrapped not in polemics, but in the humble sari of one of the gospel’s most credible and approachable witnesses.

It is impossible to observe Mother Teresa’s faith without being reminded of the faith of Our Lady. Though her darkness bore other names and other dimensions, Mary of Nazareth lived her own night of faith.

Consider Joseph’s months of doubt; finding no room in Bethlehem; the flight into Egypt; the years of Jesus’ absence from Nazareth; the hours of his agony on the cross; and her own agony as he lie in the grave. From these came the lessons of faith she shared with a young Mother Teresa.

Mother Teresa’s own life, and her sense of the role of the Mother of God, was that of “an ongoing Visitation,” a “going in haste” to bring God to others. This Marian vision was based on Mother Teresa’s own experience, but also firmly rooted in scripture.

The Gospel account of the Visitation in the first chapter of Luke shows obvious echoes of the “visitation” made by the Ark of the Covenant to David, also “in the hill country of Judea.” No one disputes that the Ark carried a special anointing of grace and divine presence, that it was itself a “theotokos” (”God-bearer”), though only made of wood.

Can God not do the same and more, in a latter Testament, with a new and better Ark? Are we scandalized that God can make of flesh what once was? Or has our generation understood “neither the scriptures nor the power of God?”

In the end, Mother Teresa would not be one to argue, but simply to say of this Marian mystery, as she so often did of the mystery of Christ hidden in the poor: “Come and see.”

I posted:

Mother Teresa did many corporeal works of mercy, and she deserves praise for those works. However, why do those works instantly translate into her having an authentic “dark night of the soul?” Some may reply, “She was also a Catholic.” It is true that she professed many Catholic beliefs but it takes more than the profession of many Catholic beliefs and the performance of the corporeal works of mercy for a dark night of the soul to take place.

Mother Teresa’s “dark night” is based on the presupposition that she was holy. Therefore, her “dark night” is interpreted as a true sanctifying dark night of a Saint. But is that truly the case? Is her life being interpreted correctly? Mother Teresa said, “There is so much contradiction in my soul” (Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light, 169). Perhaps, it was this kind of contradiction to which she was referring, “There are millions who live in Indian cities and villages in ignorance of God and of Christ, in abominable sinfulness. We shall bring them to Christ and Christ to them” (Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light, 116). But then said taught, “We never try to convert those who receive [aid from Missionaries of Charity] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God’s presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men—simply better—we will be satisfied” (Mother Teresa: Life in the Spirit, 81). She wanted to preach, “The Kingdom must be preached to all” (Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light, 133). But the kingdom she preached was, “I convert you to be a better Hindu, a better Catholic, Muslim, Jain, or Buddhist” (Mother Teresa: Saint of the Poor, 38–39).

If St. Francis, St. Claire, St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, etc., read Mother Teresa’s words in the last paragraph, it is safe to say they would not conclude that her words were the words of a Saint who experienced the dark night of the soul. It is also safe to say that Mother Teresa’s words are not the “Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye” (Jn. 2:5) of Our Lady.

I believe the common presupposition of Mother Teresa’s “dark night” must give way to a new interpretation of her person. I am sorry for any pain my words and the information I am presenting may be causing some readers. I will leave you with this consolation. St. Thomas Aquinas said, “the lover is not satisfied with a superficial apprehension of the beloved, but strives to gain an intimate knowledge of everything pertaining to the beloved, so as to penetrate into his very soul” (Summ. Theol., la. 2ae., q. 28, a. 2). Accordingly, anyone who loves Mother Teresa cannot desire to represent her other than who she really was. Take all Mother Teresa’s words before the Blessed Sacrament and ask Our Lord if her words are the words of a Saint who experienced the dark night of the soul.

Pax et Bonum,
Mark M Zima

Fr. Angelo responded:

Mark,

I do not find your words painful, and I should hope that others do not. I am sorry that you, a Catholic, have chosen a public forum like this to express your opinions contrary to the teaching of the Holy Father.

I trust Holy Mother Church and her beatification process. That you should defame someone like Mother Teresa, publicly for all to see, and assert your opinions, however astute, in contradiction to a declared beatification is both scandalous and presumptuous. I will not have it here. Period.

The lives of the servants of God whose causes have been introduced for canonization are scrutinized by a “devils advocate,” as you well know, and Mother Teresa’s words would not have been the first to pose theological difficulties which were eventually resolved, leading the way to beatification and then canonization. That you should present rogue opinions to the faithful in the pews contrary to the teaching of the Holy Father is presumptuous to the point of ridiculousness.

I am not going to argue this with you. Even if there were a basis for your contention, which I do not for a second grant, then responsible, humble and qualified theologians whose consciences were so convicted should, according to the proper domain of their mandate, discuss this within scholarly and magisterial circles; however, for an armchair theologian as yourself to write such things, either in a book or a blog, and discuss them as though an authentic Catholic life could be based on such arrogance is irresponsible and reprehensible.

I will say the same thing to you that I would say to a Modernist: if you think you know better than the Pope and are willing to declare it publicly, even to those who are even less qualified to make theological distinctions than yourself, then perhaps you are not ready live as a Catholic.

I have much sympathy for Traditional Catholics who have suffered and continue to suffer by the neglect of fathers within the Church, but that is not an excuse to create more dysfunction within the family. I suspect your position on Mother Teresa is just a small part of a larger hermeneutic of discontinuity. (Full disclosure: Mark and I know something about each other’s theological inclinations as we have met and spoken before).

I sympathize with those who struggle interiorly to remain within the Bark of Peter and who express their spiritual needs respectfully. But I have no respect and will show none for this kind of scandal.

Take it somewhere else.

I am sorry that you have brought it to this. I could not respond to your public and presumably learned comments in any other way.

A Letter form the Vatican about my Book

Is Mother Teresa’s gospel Christian?

I expected some degree of resistance when I published my book but the responses I have received even shock me. It seems that even among professing Christians of all backgrounds a war has erupted. Most bloggers are not able to discuss the virtues and vices of Mother Teresa without foaming at the mouth and firing vicious personal attacks against those who disagree with them. My concern is that Christians, especially, know the whole truth about Mother Teresa before they place her in the hall of holiness for the world to see her as the model Christian, the effects of which could be harmful to how Christianity and Christians are perceived by an unbelieving world. At the same time, I believe it is important to reflect on the virtues and vices of Mother Teresa, not just vices.

I came across this blog by a Buddhist monk on the web (http://dharmadude.multiply.com/journal/item/518). He paraphrases the gospel of Mother Teresa. He said:

“It does not matter to me what religious path a person chooses to follow. Inspired by Mother Teresa of Calcutta, my resolve is to help the Christian be the best Christian they can be... to help the Muslim or Sikh to be the best Muslim or Sikh they can be... to help the Buddhist or Pagan be the best Buddhist or Pagan they can be... and to help the atheist, agnostic, or deist to be the best atheist, agnostic or deist they can be.”

Mother Teresa taught:

“I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic” (Mother Teresa: The Case for The Cause, 29).

“I convert you to be a better Hindu, a better Catholic, Muslim, Jain, or Buddhist” (Mother Teresa: The Case for The Cause, 4).

To me, this demonstrates how incompatible Mother Teresa’s gospel is with the gospel of the Saints. The monk follows Mother Teresa but has little compatibility with St. Thomas Aquinas. I doubt the monk has a lot in common with Luther or Calvin either. Saints are hated by the world and are witnesses against the world. Jesus said, "If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you (Jn. 15:19). If Mother Teresa is a Saint who followed the gospel of Jesus, why does the world love and follow her gospel?

Book Review of Mother Teresa: The Case for The Cause by Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.

Is Mother Teresa of Calcutta a Saint?
Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.

Book review of Mother Teresa: The Case for the Cause by Mark Michael Zima.Nashville: Cold Tree Press, 2007, 268 pp. http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Teresa-Cause-Calcutta-Saint/dp/1583852247

Some years ago at a get-together of family and friends, I committed what I soon learned was an almost unpardonable mistake. I questioned the sanctity of Mother Teresa. My objections were based on certain statements she had made that smacked to me of religious indifferentism. For example, in 1997 she told an AP reporter: "Of course I convert. I convert you to be a better Hindu or a better Muslim or a better Protestant. Once you’ve found God, it’s up to you to decide how to worship him" ("Mother Teresa Touched Other Faiths," AP, Sept. 7, 1997).

But those relatives and friends gathered around the dinner table did not want to discuss orthodoxy. "Of course she’s a saint!" an aunt proclaimed with heated indignation. "Look at how she takes care of the poor, even lepers." Another brought forth as evidence of sanctity her courageous opposition to abortion. Yet another pointed to the indisputable support of John Paul II for her work. And so on.

At the time, I didn’t have at hand the needed facts to counter the gut-reaction justification that rose then – and still rises today – on behalf of the nun the whole world calls "the saint of Calcutta." Today, I would be able to respond much better, thanks in no small part to a book I recently read by Mr. Mark Michael Zima titled Mother Teresa: The Case for the Cause.

Mother Teresa’s gospel

Mark Zima, a former brother of two religious communities, does not aim to demonize Mother Teresa. He praises her corporal works of mercy, her mission to care for "the poorest of the poor," to nurse lepers, to save outcasts, to bury the dead. What he questions are her spiritual works of mercy, especially to convert the sinner, to instruct the ignorant and to counsel the doubtful.

Acclaimed for her humanitarian work. But what about her Catholic doctrine? Nor does Zima deny that persons benefit from some of her words or example. He applauds her pro-life stand and courage to reprimand world leaders on this issue. What he questions is her fidelity to the centuries-old missionary character of the Church, which aimed to bring all men to Jesus Christ and the One Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church He founded. In his book, the reader will find not just one or two, but many instances of a different teaching advocated by Mother Teresa: "I convert you to be a better Hindu, a better Catholic, Muslim, Jain or Buddhist" (p. 4). The impression is, of course, that there are many roads to salvation, a belief clearly condemned by the Catholic Church.

Along these same lines, the author cites numerous quotes of Mother Teresa proposing that God can be addressed as Shiva, Allah, Vishnu or Brahma. The important thing, according to her teaching, is not what religion the person belongs to, but whether he or she is a "good" person. For example, she states, "Some call him Allah, some simply God. But we all have to acknowledge that it is he who made us for the greater things: to love and be loved" (pp. 4-5). This, however, is a Liberal and Modernist error condemned by the Syllabus, Pascendi and many other papal teachings before Vatican II.

The contradictions…

Mr. Zima admits that much of what Mother Teresa said is orthodox, citing quotes normally produced by those who passionately defend her orthodoxy. But he points out troubling contradictions in her teaching. For example, she rightly affirmed, "Preach only Christ and Christ crucified." But in her address to the United Nations in 1985, Mother Teresa told the world something completely different: "No color, no religion, no nationality should come between us. We are all children of God" (p. 6).

Mother Teresa often said that all souls need to be converted, which appears to be good doctrine if one assumes that the conversion is to the Catholic Faith. But, to the contrary, she said that her goal was "to make the Christian the better Christian, the Muslim a better Muslim, and a Hindu a better Hindu." This echoes the teaching of Mahatma Gandhi and Sri Ramakrishna that all religions are true (pp 29-31). It is not, however, Catholic teaching.

Mother Teresa often stated she wanted to give Jesus to all, that Christ was the way to salvation, which is absolutely true. But at the same time she said non-Catholics could replace the Name of Jesus with God: "You could replace Jesus by God if you are not a Christian" (pp. 79-80). Again, another error condemned by the Syllabus of Pius IX and Pascendi of St. Pius X (pp. 71-72).

The ticket for St. Peter

Another baffling contradiction that Mark Zima examines in chapter VII regards Mother Teresa’s repeated claim that "her mission was not to convert." Mother Teresa and her sisters said they helped the dying to receive the rituals of their various faiths: "for Hindus, water from the Ganges on their lips; for Muslims reading from the Koran; for the rare Christian, the last rites" (p. 142).

At the same time, speaking at the Vatican in 1992 she boasted that all those who died in her shelter in Calcutta had "received the special ticket for St. Peter" (p. 126). That ticket is the name for baptism, well, a baptism of sorts… According to the foundress of the Missionaries of Charity, the policy was to ask those who were about to die "if they want a blessing by which their sins will be forgiven and they will see God" (p. 127). If they agreed, and apparently most did agree, the sisters would put a wet cloth on the head of the person and quietly say the form of words for Baptism (p. 127).

There are obvious problems with such procedure. Questions must be asked if this strange procedure is a valid Baptism.

First, for a valid Baptism, the water must be applied by sprinkling, immersion or pouring. Does laying a wet cloth on the forehead comply with the rule?
Second, the formula of Baptism should be said aloud in an audible voice, and it is not clear if the sisters did so.
Third, for adults to be properly disposed for Baptism, they should clearly express their desire to embrace the Catholic Faith as the one true faith revealed by God. It is almost certain that this requirement was not fulfilled in the "ticket to St. Peter" administrated by Mother Teresa and her nuns. Clearly, Hindus, Muslims and agnostics who have never been instructed in the Catholic faith and who did not accept Jesus Christ are not properly disposed.

Therefore, Mark Zima concludes, one must question whether Mother Teresa violated the preparation, manner, form and qualifications for Baptism (pp. 129-130). Instead of instructing pagans in the Catholic Faith, did she propagate the faith by deception and covert Sacraments? Such questions should have been carefully examined in a serious canonization process.

Other problematic teachings

The author raises yet other problematic teachings of Mother Teresa, countering them with the teachings of past Popes, Saints and Church Doctors. Let me mention a few:

God as incarnate in every human being. Mother Teresa often spoke of God being incarnate in each of the poor she served. Regarding abortion, she said "When we destroy an unborn child, we destroy God." In fact, abortion is horrendous because it is a terrible crime, the murder of a child. But, as Mr. Zima points out, only "a pantheist would believe that destroying an unborn child is destroying God" (pp. 54, 88-111).

The nature of man is good. When Mother Teresa insists, as she did, that man is not born evil, it is difficult not to interpret this as a denial of the dogma of original sin (p. 43).

The primacy of conscience. Mother Teresa said that what mattered was that the individual think and believe that his or her way is the only way to God: "Man is free to embrace the religion that gives him peace, joy and love. There is no freedom if a person is not free to choose according to his own conscience" (pp. 32, 168). The relativism of her words are clear: "If the individual thinks and believes that his or her way is the only way to God, then that is their way of salvation" (pp. 74-75).

The wide gate to Heaven. Contrary to the teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ who warns us that the gate of Heaven is narrow (Mt 7:13-14), Mother Teresa often comforted persons by assuring them that "we will meet all our friends and family members who died before us in Heaven." Buddhists, Muslims, Protestants – all were "going home to God" (p. 123-125).

Should Mother Teresa be considered a saint?

Was what Mother Teresa said, did and taught regarding the Catholic Faith what has been "believed everywhere, always, and by all (ubique, semper, ab omnibus)? This is the question at the crux of Mark Zima’s book: Should Mother Teresa be canonized?

Let me provide a little background on the topic. On Oct. 19, 2003, John Paul II beatified Mother Teresa of Calcutta, who died in 1997. The process leading up to the beatification was the shortest in modern history. Less than two years after her death, he waived the normal five-year waiting period and allowed the immediate opening of her canonization cause. So Zima’s question is timely. Was the process too fast? Should the case be examined more carefully in light of Catholic dogma?

To answer that question, the reader is asked to set aside any emotional attachment to the nun and her work of assisting the poor, and examine her words and actions in light of the constant, unchanging teaching of the Catholic Church. He must objectively ask himself, Can Mother Teresa’s teaching harmonize with the Church Magisterium?

The reader must remember that all the works, words and actions of a candidate to the altars must be shown to be orthodox. Under that light, one quite simply cannot affirm unequivocally that Mother Teresa is a saint.

In his final chapter, Mr. Zima asserts that Catholics have the right and duty, for the love of the Faith, to petition the Congregation for Cause of Saints, asking that Mother Teresa’s cause to be re-examined more carefully and objectively, raising the objections presented in his book. (1) I think it is a good proposal because a very serious matter is at stake in this case. It is the integrity itself of the Catholic Faith.

To canonize Mother Teresa is to fulfill the progressivist desire for a new criterion for making saints. A criterion that, ignoring doctrinal soundness, is based solely on good will and charity toward our fellow man. With her canonization, we would come a step closer to establishing a common list of saints with the other religions, the "common martyrology" coined by John Paul II in the Encyclical Ut Unum Sint (no. 84). What will be next? The rehabilitation of Luther?

To canonize Mother Teresa raises a grave question: Has the Catholic Faith, which cannot change, in fact changed? To accept her teaching is to renounce doctrinal opposition to the false religions. Despite her good works, her words and actions imply the death of militancy and true missionary spirit in the Catholic Church.

I strongly advise reading this important book. It is not only an objective, honest examination of the life and cause of Mother Teresa, but also an invaluable reference work that sets forth the teachings of Saints, Popes and Doctors of the Catholic Church.

1. The Congregations’ address: Congregation for the Causes of Saints, Piazza Pio XII 10, 00193 Rome, Italy

http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_025br_MotherTeresa_Zima.htm