If you are having trouble viewing this email, click here.
August 29, 2007
by Dinesh D'Souza

side bar side bar side bar side bar side bar side bar In Christopher Hitchens' wickedly iconoclastic book The Missionary Position, Mother Teresa is portrayed as a self-satisfied dogmatist who never entertained any doubts.  She was a "true believer" of the fanatical type.  In his latest book God Is Not Great, Hitchens is at it again, depicting believing Christians like Mother Teresa as sharing the dangerous certitudes of the Islamic terrorists.  Not only are all believers extremists, in Hitchens' caustic analysis, they are also poseurs who claim to know what cannot be known.

The latest revelations about Mother Teresa, featured in the current issue of Time, completely explode Hitchens' thesis.  Time based its article on a new book which contains correspondence between Teresa and her confessors and superiors over a period of several decades.  She confessed to a spiritual adviser that within her heart "the silence and the emptiness is so great that I look and do not see, listen and do not hear."  In a 1955 note she remarked, "The more I want Him, the less I am wanted…Such deep longing for God—and…repulsed— empty—no faith—no love—no zeal."  In one of her letters, addressed to Jesus, she wrote, "Lord, my God, who am I that You should forsake me?  The child of your love---and now become as the most hated one…You have thrown away as unwanted—unloved…So many unanswered questions live within me afraid to uncover them—because of the blasphemy—If there be a God—please forgive me…I am told that God loves me, and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul."

Time interprets these anguished ruminations as a "startling portrait in self-contradiction," as if Mother Teresa was one person in public and another in private.  Hitchens cannot resist further digs, and he makes a complete about-face in his reading of Mother Teresa.  Once he viewed her as an inflexible dogmatist; now he depicts her as a secret unbeliever who knew that "religion is a human fabrication," comparable to the latter-day Communists who paid lip service to the official ideology but couldn't abide it any longer in their hearts.

Here we see how atheist prejudice results in a breakdown of reason.   Hitchens cannot bring himself to say, "I thought she was a self-satisfied dogmatist.  I have to try to understand her all over again."  Earlier he condemned her for having no doubts; now he uses her doubts to suggest that she never really believed what she publicly espoused.  Time cannot get beyond its cognitive dissonance that a sincere Christian may harbor uncertainty and anguish over a long period of years.

But Mother Teresa's heart-wrenching self-examination is entirely familiar to thoughtful Christians.  For instance, her insistent theme that she is being forsaken by God recalls Christ's plaintive cry on the cross, "Why have You forsaken me?"  From Augustine to Luther to John of the Cross, there is a whole body of Christian literature that sounds exactly like Mother Teresa.  In John's Dark Night of the Soul, for instance, the initial exhilaration of conversion is followed by a "dark night of the senses" that is "bitter and terrible to taste."  Even so, this suffering is nothing compared to what follows, the "dark night of the soul" in which "the soul feels itself to be perishing and melting away, in the presence and sight of its miseries, in a cruel spiritual death, even as if it had been swallowed by a beast and felt itself being devoured."  John interprets these travails as the purification of the sinful part of man, so that he is ready for the holy eternal embrace of God.

From Christian classics like these we learn that, contrary to atheist propaganda, believers don't claim to "know" God.  That's why they are called "believers."  To be a believer means, "Even though I do not know, I have faith."  Nor do believers, however devout, experience God on a constant basis.  There is a big chasm that between the terrestrial and the transcendental, and a terrible silence usually separates the two. A glimpse or foretaste of eternity, this is all that we get, if we're lucky.

The greatness of Mother Teresa is that even when she was deprived of the spiritual satisfactions of feeling God's presence in her life, she did not waver, she soldiered on.  She was not deterred in her mission.  And what she didn't have by way of feeling, she compensated for by way of will.  In doing so, she teaches us all something about love: it is not merely a sentiment, to be set aside when feelings come and go, but rather a decision of the will.  That she did what she did in exchange for the love of God is astounding enough.  That she did it all even when this love was invisible to her—if this does not constitute saintliness, I don't know what does.

 


Responses to Knocked off the Pedestal:

Dear friends, How to put this as politely as possible? I read your weekly feature with interest, because it raises some extremely important points in the current "marketplace of ideas." But, when it come to your own position I always find myself a little nauseous. Why? Because you obviously have first rate minds, but you are using a technique or strategy that dooms you to mediocre philosophy. It is the same approach used by Rush Limbaugh and some of the ranters and railers of the radiowaves, (although you are much more civilized and articulate.) That approach is to scan over the many writers and speakers out there, find the most absolutely outrageous, and then pick them apart. A good example is the review of Alan Weisman's The World Without Us. You begin with this: "Environmentalists have their own eschatology." Really? No. One kook fringe element has this eschatology. The vast, overwhelming number of environmentalists would never, never ascribe to that viewpoint, and will in fact never even hear of Weisman or his extreme views. But by focusing on him as if he represents all environmentalists you force yourself into a polar opposite position, one that greatly satisfies the anti-environmentalists in the conservative camp. You become an apologist for those who would desecrate the world, and along with it, the chances of humanity for survival or a decent future, the ones like EXXON who have been funding a huge disinformation campaign to dismiss all the scientists who confirm global warming with their research. How much better it would be if you would apply your intellect to finding solutions, not just taking aim at straw men and oddballs! As I said, you raise some very important issues, especially the re-emergence of social darwinism among left wing intellectuals. But in the long run, you are wasting your gifts. - Boyd Holliday

Editor's note: Dear Mr. Holliday, We were puzzled by your critique of tothesource for a review we never published. You cite as an example of our tendency toward mediocre philosophy the review of Alan Weisman's The World Without Us which we've never reviewed or written about. The quotation you furnish actually comes from Wesley J. Smith's blog-Secondhand Smoke on July 16, 2007. Feel free to direct your comments to his blog and thanks for the compliments about our publication.

The ideas presented in this article have been around for awhile, especially in the writing and teaching of Dr. Peter Singer. Singer is the "father" of the Animal Rights movement and has held the "chair" at the Center for Human Values at Princeton. Ten years ago, his appointment to this seat was challenged without any success. Singer believes infants can be killed until the age of two should the parents deem the child too difficult to raise. (The age of two is when Singer believes babies achieve "personhood.") Singer's arguments are cogent and logical when you afford him his starting point. "Doing" rather than "Being" is what achieves this sick philosophy. However, removing the influence of the Bible from the discussion, or even religion in general, will find science the master of life, a science that does make value judgments. I was surprised that Singer was not mentioned in your article, especially that he is a major voice in this movement and fuels several of the arenas you mentioned. Medical ethics and animal rights are two areas where Singer has let his voice be heard. He has campaigned for the rights of Great Apes to be recognized as persons and even written a 'bill of rights' for their inclusion. Finally, thanks for taking this subject to task. I'd like to see some followup articles on the subject. - Ray Ciervo

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.
Click for a Printer Friendly Version
top
left links right
Even Mother Teresa Got the Blues
St. John of the Cross
bottom
about tothesource
We live complex lives. We strive to sort out priorities that sometimes conflict or seem incompatible. A moral framework is needed to help us understand the reality around us. Our Judeo-Christian heritage provides a framework to help us comprehend the choices we make and the conflicts that arise over them. It is not only the main source of our spiritual values, but also many of the secular values we depend on.

tothesource is a forum for integrating thinking and action within a moral framework that takes into account our contemporary situation. We will report the insights of cultural experts to the specific issues we face believing these sources will embolden people to greater faith and action.
subscribe email a friend
We invite you to subscribe to our free email service
that features informed opinion on current cultural issues.
Dinesh D'Souza, the Rishwain Research Scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, served as senior domestic policy analyst in the White House in 1987-1988. He is the best-selling author of Illiberal Education, The End of Racism, Ronald Reagan, The Virtue of Prosperity, What's So Great About America, and The Enemy at Home. His upcoming book What's So Great About Christianity will be released Fall of 2007.
tothesource, P.O. Box 1292, Thousand Oaks, CA 91358
Phone: (805) 241-3138 | Fax: (805) 241-3158 | info@tothesource.org

site stats