August 29, 2016
Bill Donohue explains why Mother Teresa
deserves sainthood:
On September 4, Blessed Mother Teresa
will forever be known as Saint Mother Teresa. I know of no one in my
lifetime, save for Saint John Paul II, who could rival her
qualifications for canonization.
If ever there were an
altruist, it was Mother Teresa. She selflessly gave of herself for
decades, helping the sick and dying, picking them up off the street,
securing medicinal care, and comforting them in their closing days.
And she never asked for anything in return.
Those she
ministered to were the most destitute of the destitute: children who
survived abortions, the malnourished, lepers, AIDS patients, the
physically and mentally handicapped, elderly cripples—she never
turned anyone away. Indeed, she implored those who would abandon the
dispossessed—this included hospitals—to "give them to
me."
Given all of this, she still had her
detractors. That is why I wrote, Unmasking Mother Teresa's Critics
(Sophia Institute Press).
There are two principal
characteristics that mark every one of Mother Teresa's biggest
critics: their militant atheism and their support for socialism, or
left-wing politics.
It is entirely possible to be an
atheist and be a fan of Mother Teresa, and I name them. It is also
possible to be a socialist and admire her work; I name them, too. But
when these two attributes are combined, those who harbor them are
more likely to be her enemy. This is certainly true of the most
extremist in their ranks.
Militant atheists, by
definition, are predisposed not to embrace religious figures,
especially Catholic titans. What is perhaps not as self-evident is
why radical socialists might find Mother Teresa distasteful.
Radical
socialists believe that it is the job of the state, and the state
alone, to tend to the poor. As such, any private, voluntary effort to
help the needy is viewed as a deterrent to the role of the state.
When the source of assistance is faith-based, that is even more
alarming.
Militant atheists and radical socialists,
beginning with Christopher Hitchens, have always hated Mother Teresa
because she is an altruist. In their minds, there is no such thing as
altruism. Why? Because historically altruists have been religiously
inspired champions of the poor and the neglected. Think of it: Who is
the secular analogue to Mother Teresa?
Samuel and Pearl
Oliner are non-observant Jewish sociologists who wrote The Altruistic
Personality. They wanted to know who were the most likely to risk
their lives to save Jews during the Holocaust, and what they found
were characteristics more closely aligned with people of faith than
atheists. These altruists were not the kinds of people that would
endear themselves to the likes of Hitchens.
In other
words, Mother Teresa represented a threat. She was a threat to the
worldview that holds that religion is inimical to freedom, and
faith-based programs for the poor are an obstacle to statist
prescriptions. Indeed, she represented a target that was so rich, so
big, it was irresistible.
In my book, I take on every
major criticism made against her. And unlike Hitchens, who wrote a
book that had not one citation—no footnotes, no endnotes—my
volume has more footnotes than pages. I am not a fan of unsupported
opinions, especially when the subject is the debunking of someone the
stature of Mother Teresa. Put up or shut up.
The critics
of Mother Teresa, and there are many more than Hitchens, have an
agenda: to take her down. They failed. I, too, have an agenda: to
defend her. After writing my book, I can honestly say that I love her
now more than ever. She made my job easy—there is so much to love.
