Spiritual writers often refer to "the dark night of the soul"--the experience of great souls of seemingly being abandoned by God, as (perhaps) when Solomon wrote the book of Ecclesiastes ("Vanity, vanity; all is vanity!"), or (even more perhaps) when Jesus cried, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Mother Theresa, it was revealed after her death, experienced this phenomenon as well, and recent evidence suggests that it lasted for a very long time--decades, in fact. Truly an antarctic dark night of the soul.
GET THE STORY.
It is unfortunate that the mass media had to get a hold of this, since it obviously cannot understand a deep mystical experience like a dark night of the soul. The headline on one major new website read: "New evidence shows Mother Theresa questioned her faith." The book will definitely be inspiring to others going through similar darkness in their prayer life, and definitely thoroughly misunderstood by the vast majority. This is actually not new news, Bl. Mother Theresa had spoken before of the darkness she experienced, it is just more concrete evidence of what we already knew.
Posted by: TJB | August 24, 2007 at 03:04 AM
Mother Theresa was kind of an emo =/
Well, at least she persevered and did not fade away into oblivion and ponder about it; she left a legacy for us, which is honorable.
Although she did get one thing right: we are talking a lot about her and not enough on Jesus.
Posted by: Erik | August 24, 2007 at 03:08 AM
I think every Christian who pursues his or her faith deeply and honestly struggles with doubt and unbelief, often for much of their lives. In Introduction to Christianity Pre-16 observes that St. Terese of Lisieux reported being "assailed by the worst temptations of atheism."
Of course, Pre-16 also points out that honest atheists experience the opposite sort of "temptation" and "doubt": Perhaps it is true after all.
Posted by: SDG | August 24, 2007 at 03:28 AM
... If this shakes them, what will they do when they find out about St. Augustine?
Posted by: Foxfier | August 24, 2007 at 04:15 AM
I read the article in Time before coming here and was upset that it gave so much ink to the Hitchen's viewpoint, "See, see, I told you God does not exist. Even Mother Theresa figured it out." His opportunism and self-promotion is nauseating and I doubt he even sees the contradiction in his position. If God is not real, how can a saint feel his absence?
But while reading the article I feel I had a revelation. Maybe God granted Mother Theresa her prayer to love Christ more than any other by allowing her to share in Christ's desolation on the cross. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Without near constant infusions of grace to keep me going, I fear I would be lost. Mother Theresa kept her faith through decades of God hiding from her, even being absent from the eucharist. How close will she be to the throne of God in heaven?
Posted by: MIchael | August 24, 2007 at 05:18 AM
Exactly.
Posted by: SDG | August 24, 2007 at 05:29 AM
Perhaps the more you are aware of God, the more you can measure the size of the hole in your heart longing for God. That may be the cost of the gift of free will that God granted us. Hitchens rejects the gift. Mother Theresa embraced it with all the formidable will she had. Is that not Love itself?
Posted by: Mike Melendez | August 24, 2007 at 05:41 AM
Mostly Hitchens is just predictable. What disappoints me about his response - and the stories I've seen about this so far - is that he just can't account sufficiently for M. Teresa's perseverence in faith despite feeling Christ's absence for fifty years.
She had visions of Him prior to this fifty-year "dark night". She knew He was real. I would say that's a much more rational explanation than "she just couldn't face the truth"...
Posted by: Kasia | August 24, 2007 at 06:06 AM
Happy Catholic has an awesome post on this subject. Her spiritual director advice Bl. Theresa to view the absence of outward signs of His presence as the "spiritual side" of her work for Him and that her longing for his presence was evidence of His proximity.
Posted by: Memphis Aggie | August 24, 2007 at 06:54 AM
Someone give me the short version: is this different from what we've heard about her before, or just now getting major press?
She amazes me. The first time I heard of someone being given the gift of suffering the lack of feeling God was St. Therese and it blew my mind. What a saint you would have to be, and the fact that I've never *not* "felt" God's presence tells me just how far from holiness I am. My easy life is such a testimony to what a wuss He thinks I am, lol!
Praise God for His Saints!
Posted by: NaturalCatholicMama | August 24, 2007 at 07:04 AM
Mother Theresa's life is the perfect exemplar for what St. John of the Cross meant when he spoke of "faith alone."
Posted by: Esquire | August 24, 2007 at 07:12 AM
The "dark night" that so many saints go through and which St John of the Cross described seem different than the temptation to doubt and disbelief. St Therese seems like a bad example to go by, because she went through both. But the dark night is largely affective, it concerns not being able to feel God's presence, or any love for God, or find any good quality in oneself, etc. It's perfectly consistent with a firm faith.
The potent temptation of the saint to disbelief, rather than to despair or accedia or some other sin, seems like a more modern phenomenon which is increasing due to pressure from the cultural and intellectual atmosphere. You can find instances of the dark night among medieval saints, but as far as I can tell the temptation to atheism was common--their metaphysics was too good for that!
The problem of belief and unbelief particularly affects the modern man. Dosoyevsky writes especially powerfully about it in The Brothers Karamazov but it's a common theme in many modern religious writers, much more so than in previous ages.
My only point is that Mother Theresa could have gone through a dark night without ever having a "crisis of faith", although of course she could have had both.
Posted by: Michael Sullivan | August 24, 2007 at 07:13 AM
Neuner would later write, "It was the redeeming experience of her life when she realized that the night of her heart was the special share she had in Jesus' passion." And she thanked Neuner profusely: "I can't express in words — the gratitude I owe you for your kindness to me — for the first time in ... years — I have come to love the darkness.
In one sentence Mother Teresa answers the psycologists and atheists. This is not some sort of inner attacking success pop psyc thing. And, unlike the communists trying to prop up the Soviet Union, Mother Tereasa was trying to empty herself completely rather than filling herself.
Posted by: Martin Tohill | August 24, 2007 at 07:22 AM
This isn't so surprising to me. Mother Teresa immersed herself in human suffering and after doing that for awhile, she started to have spiritual doubts. Who wouldn't. But the most important part was that she was given the grace of perseverance, a sure sign of sanctity. She was able to lead others with her words and example and didn't stray from her cause, the sign of a saint.
Posted by: Andrew | August 24, 2007 at 07:28 AM
The model of faith for John of the Cross is Christ's willingness to surrender himself to the Father despite feeling with every fiber of his being that the Father had foresaken him. It is the supernatural, infused ability to trust God when you are completely naked.
To have been given a faith so strong that she could endure that for half a century is a marvelous testimony to the power of faith. To say for 50 years, not only do I not feel Your Presence, but I feel as though You have foresaken me, that You have foresaken my entire world, and to day after day after day keep surrendering yourself to that God, will go down in history as one of the most powerful witnesses to the Glory of God in the history of the Church.
Despite what Hitchens says.
Posted by: Esquire | August 24, 2007 at 07:30 AM
Someone should inform Mr. Hitchens who attacked Mother Teresa's character and made money off of doing that, that she has impacted the world far more than he has.
Love is a choice, an action. It sometimes has little to do with feelings to prompt it or stoke it. Do we marvel over those who've spent 50 years of a loveless marriage doing the right thing? Love of God and honoring a commitment unto Him is what every vocation demands; there are no promises of consolation.
It seems to me that the Lord has arranged for Mother to have had a "white" martyrdom, a persecution from within, in a manner of speaking, and it's only now showing. She didn't want that revealed, for she had so many to lead and inspire and strengthen.. but her Church did, and she deferred to the Church. Her Spouse knows exactly what He is doing.
Posted by: JustMe | August 24, 2007 at 07:38 AM
Michael Sullivan: Great, great insight. I'd love to hear what others think about your distinction between a "dark night" and "doubts" and whether the latter is in fact more prevalent in modern life.
Posted by: Anon | August 24, 2007 at 08:02 AM
"...the fact that I've never *not* "felt" God's presence tells me just how far from holiness I am..."
Not necessarily, at all. Your gift may be the awareness of Christ's presence, while Mother Teresa's was to suffer with him by experiencing this blank silence.
God can work through both.
I have "mountaintop" moments, and experiences wherein I feel the almost palpable presence of God or of the Blessed Mother... but these are not the norm.
I agree with others above who have pointed out that not to feel God's presence - to experience the "dark night" - is not the same thing AT ALL as having "doubts" about the faith.
Posted by: Tim J. | August 24, 2007 at 08:37 AM
My fear from all this is that many will be tempted to think "if Mother Teresa doubted God's existence, as this says, then what hope is there for my own doubts?", which is precisely the thought that I had when I read it too.
Posted by: Doubtin Tom | August 24, 2007 at 09:04 AM
It is unfortunate that the mass media had to get a hold of this, since it obviously cannot understand a deep mystical experience like a dark night of the soul.
That's what is so unfortunate.
Even now, there have been several spins being made of this.
I watched both the NBC news segment as well as the TODAY show segment and both keep repeating and accentuating the words "Good Works" all throughout the programs but that even with "all her Good Works", she harbored these doubts (e.g., repeating the supposed letter of Mother Teresa -- "her smile being a mask" or something to that effect).
News Flash:
Even the Apostles suffered such doubts about Christ and their Faith -- in spite of the fact that they saw first-hand all the miracles Our Lord had performed!!!
Posted by: Esau | August 24, 2007 at 09:06 AM
To be fair though, at least Ann Curry at the TODAY show had the decency to add at the end of the TODAY show segment that was shown (which was being reported by another Journalist) that what was admirable was that Mother Teresa stuck it out to the end.
Also, I've got to admit, the TODAY show folks been more kind to Catholics than most media outlets.
They even showed a segment a week ago about Attendance at Mass and how at a certain Catholic parish, a devoted priest is trying to encourage attendance through some personal ministering of the parish members there.
Posted by: Esau | August 24, 2007 at 09:11 AM
+J.M.J+
I guess it's not a good idea for a non-psychologist like myself to try to "diagnose" someone who has been deceased for a decade now. But I must wonder whether any of Blessed Teresa's ordeal may have also been due to some type of clinical depression.
I say that because I just went through a rather dark period myself, mostly due to clinical depression (though the devil also took advantage of me in my weakened state, so some of it at least was spiritual). I'm feeling better now, having taken steps to deal with the depression.
When I read the exerpts from her letters today, though, I could relate to some of what she said. That's what makes me wonder whether there might have been a biomedical aspect to her suffering. I could be wrong, of course.
In Jesu et Maria,
Posted by: Rosemarie | August 24, 2007 at 10:01 AM
What I find interesting about all this is that Mother Teresa's essential message was that we need to discover Christ in the "distressing visage of the poor".
That is a difficult leap for anyone to make but it seems perhaps fitting that once she began to serve Christ in the poor she no longer received sensible consolations of his presence in prayer.
Posted by: Mark | August 24, 2007 at 10:22 AM
Oh Lord, is this the way it's going to go? I've heard that theory elsewhere this morn as well, and again I say: Poppycock. I'd say something else, but I wouldn't be allowed back in. Surely, anyone who opts to love -- truly love -- is going to suffer from depression. Love is not perfect, here. Yet. But genuine depression paralyzes, yes? Was Mother Teresa paralyzed in any of her actions in the name of Love? Well, looking not only at her personal history but around the world as to how she changed it, the answer is blatantly No.
True love, every vocation, that which lays down life for its friends or its spiritual children, is hard. Period.
Sometimes when offered two crowns, a saintly soul in love picks both, even if indirectly via her vows long ago. Imagine hanging with Him on the Cross in that Eloi Eloi moment for 50 years. What love.
Posted by: JustMe | August 24, 2007 at 10:25 AM
"Also, I've got to admit, the TODAY show folks been more kind to Catholics than most media outlets."
Ann, I think the media consultants to the networks have discovered the same thing as the democratic political consultants; they have lost all trust and credibility from an important demographic - Catholics - and they are scrambling to make up for it.
I noticed even Sean Hannity did a very Catholic segment the night before last; I believe he is in damage control mode with Catholics as well ...
Posted by: Mark | August 24, 2007 at 10:32 AM
I think it is clear, from problems like this, that Christianity is a hoax.
Posted by: Aristotle | August 24, 2007 at 10:50 AM
Aristotle,
Interesting. How so?
Posted by: Blackadder | August 24, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Aristotle, Is that sarcasm or are you a rhetorical bomb thrower?
Posted by: Memphis Aggie | August 24, 2007 at 11:02 AM
I think it is clear, from problems like this, that Christianity is a hoax.
I was anticipating such comments.
It almost reminds me of the Salma Hayek film The Maldonado Miracle where the whole miracle was a Hoax (or so it seemed).
Posted by: Esau | August 24, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Ann, I think the media consultants to the networks have discovered the same thing as the democratic political consultants; they have lost all trust and credibility from an important demographic - Catholics - and they are scrambling to make up for it.
Mark,
Good point (although, I'm not Ann). ;P
I was actually wondering why recently, they've been doing so many 'Catholic' segments on TODAY.
Initially, I thought the addition of Meredith Viera had something to do with it (somebody informed me she had 'Pull' and was Catholic).
However, I believe your reasoning makes better sense.
Posted by: Esau | August 24, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Sharing in the Cross of Christ is now a "problem" and proof "that Christianity is a hoax".
Jesus told us: "Pick up your cross and follow Me."
So, doing what Jesus told us to do, and enduring the trial He told us we would have is now proof refuting Christianity.
Unique reasoning.
Posted by: bill912 | August 24, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Such good posts above.
About a year and a half ago, I had occasion to begin to read St. John of the Cross's Dark Night of the Soul. Since it's not an easy read, I also did a search which is when I discovered that Mother Teresa had experienced it. It was very consoling to know that she did so much while experiencing such aridity.
After reading the first few chapters, it hit me that it wasn't Mother Teresa doing what she did despite the dark night but because she experienced the dark night. That while everyone hits dry spots, what St. John of the Cross describes is a very specific stage in a person's spiritual life. I've heard the experience that St. John of the Cross describes in relation to people who have been founders or foundresses and once they enter it, comes and goes for the rest of their lives.
St. John of the Cross explains what happens in book 1, chapter 9. That "God transfers to the spirit the good things and strength of the senses," that the spirit continues to be fed, but the senses remain dry. It's the dryness that makes it seem like God is not there.
For Rosemarie, in the same chapter, St. John makes distinctions between the dark night and what we now know as depression. There are areas of great similarity and it takes a good spiritual director to discern if the person is indeed entering the dark night. Then again, everyone hits dry spots.
JustMe, anyone who opts to love -- truly love -- is going to suffer from depression. That's an interesting view and certainly anyone truly loves will hit rough patches. That might be what a layperson calls depression. But depression as a medical diagnosis has to meet specific criteria. In the same way, St. John of the Cross lays out specific criteria that distinguishes the dark night of the soul.
Posted by: Mary Kay | August 24, 2007 at 01:52 PM
This is really not the exact nor as big as a story as the secular news media is making it out to be.
Her words are very poetic, certainly express doubt and frustration--but we do not know the context nor are the words are obviously or explicitly clear as the conclusions in the media.
I have had wierd thoughts and doubts that could make me look insane. I may have bordered on insanity not just in faith but even in professional personal issues and confidence and belief in success and perservering in relationships.
To take private letters or comments to a spiritual director and make extrapolations is not a good logical way to look at this.
These letters and her doubts about God (at least at times or in some sense) were actually know for some time and reported in the media years ago. But it now seems new and innovative and is being used to demonstrate aethieism or agnosticisism or if this great saint doubted than how we can believe (when I believe the oppossite is possible)
I have a friend who recently had a tumor removed--please pray for him in Chicago.
Posted by: Jon | August 24, 2007 at 02:39 PM
+J.M.J+
>>>So, doing what Jesus told us to do, and enduring the trial He told us we would have is now proof refuting Christianity.
Oh, but didn't you know that, if Christianity were true, there would be absolutely no pain or suffering whatsoever, anywhere in the world? Never mind that the Bible doesn't say that (in fact it says the opposite) - atheists are convinced that that's how things would be and they're always right in their own minds. They couldn't possibly have a skewed understanding about God and religion, could they?
So let's see: a racist demogogue slaughters more than six million innocent people during WWII, and atheists say that proves that God doesn't exist because if He did the innocent wouldn't suffer. A woman dedicates her whole life to caring for the poorest of the poor and perseveres in that work despite terrible inner turmoil, inspiring thousands to follow her example, and atheists say that *also* proves that God doesn't exist because if He did He wouldn't allow His faithful to undergo spiritual trials.
I think I remember the name of this game: Heads I Win, Tails You Lose.
In Jesu et Maria,
Posted by: Rosemarie | August 24, 2007 at 02:50 PM
This is where the Roman Catholic faith shines! We have such a rich, deep faith. Sound-bites from the news media cannot possibly reach the depth of this experience.
Posted by: Joe | August 24, 2007 at 02:57 PM
Her words are very poetic, certainly express doubt and frustration--but we do not know the context nor are the words are obviously or explicitly clear as the conclusions in the media.
AMEN, Jon!!!
You've hit it precisely on the nail!
It's amazing that the News media keeps on focussing on a select line in her letter that mentions her allegedly indicating that her "smile was only a mask" (or something to that effect) to make it appear as if it was all an act while not placing her actual words and the entire letter itself within its rightful context.
Posted by: Esau | August 24, 2007 at 03:03 PM
I have a dear friend who struggles with the pain of living with a much loved, but agnostic husband. She was sharing, some time ago, that she has periods of time in her life, when she wonders if he is right, and she, the devout Christian, is wrong; if there is a God at all.
"How do you deal with it?" I asked her; "What do you do?"
"Oh," she replied, "I do the same things I always do. My faith is built on Who Christ is, not on how I feel about it".
I am sure she would simply hate to be compared to a saint. I am also sure that I am guilty of more than a little envy, at her rock solid devotion to Jesus Christ....even when she has no sense that He is there.
Posted by: My Cat's Name is Lily | August 24, 2007 at 03:06 PM
My Cat's Name is Lily,
Thanks so much for those comments!
I really appreciate them!
I particularly admire your friend's comment:
"My faith is built on Who Christ is, not on how I feel about it."
That takes a whole lot of Faith that sometimes some of us suffer many doubts about.
I mean, especially in this world when, for the most part, one witnesses the most horrible things happening and in the midst of all that, how can anybody say there is a God?
Perhaps in the midst of all the suffering that Mother Teresa personally witnessed and even suffered, one can't actually blame her for experiencing such doubts at various times in her life.
It can't be helped -- especially in a world where injustice seems to be more rampant than anything else.
Posted by: Esau | August 24, 2007 at 03:14 PM
Mary Kay (and others),
perhaps it would help to read Ascent of Mount Carmel before tackling Dark Night of the Soul, which is its continuation. The Dark Night sounds more exciting, but it makes less sense without reading what St John has to say about earlier stages of the spiritual life.
Posted by: Michael Sullivan | August 24, 2007 at 05:23 PM
I really appreciate her perseverance. I think everyone has "spiritual valleys," but most of us back away in such times even if it's something as simple as missing that prayer meeting or taking your mind of faith for a while. Yet, this saint immersed herself in Christ and helped others without haulting even when she was in a "spiritual valley."
Posted by: Eric S. | August 24, 2007 at 05:36 PM
Michael,
Thanks for the suggestion of Ascent of Mt. Carmel. I'll put it on my ever growing list.
It would make sense to read the first book first but Dark Night was the book that was um, recommended so that's what I picked up. I should also add that I've gotten past the "not easy read" stage. Perhaps it was good thing that I didn't start with the first book because I really needed at that time to hear about Mother Teresa's experience with it.
Posted by: Mary Kay | August 24, 2007 at 05:38 PM
As a Cradle Catholic I have been exposed to the writings of and about the Saints and Martyr's lives, my entire life.
Blessed Mother Teresa is ....Absolutely Awesome!!!
She blows them all away, she is closer to God than anyone I have ever heard of!! She was as another Christ, He so lived in her and worked through her that she didn't see HIM, but we all did! My Mother and Mother-in-law both use to say, "sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees".
Anyone who really knew about her, knows she was a living Saint. As someone else said above also, I wouldn't doubt that she is a White Martyr.
Thank you Jimmy for posting this beautiful account of her spiritual life, I can't wait to get the book.
Posted by: You Know Who You Are | August 24, 2007 at 06:23 PM
I just checked the Barnes and Noble site, just to confirm what I already knew - that they promote liberal theme books, but are silent about books with a conservative theme. Nothing in the New Fall Books. I typed in the title.
Sales rank #1.
Their hottest selling book and not a word. Then again, "Class, can you say NYTimes bestseller?"
Posted by: Mary Kay | August 24, 2007 at 06:38 PM
I ordered my copy today. I am glad that this has hit the mainstream press, even though many will not have neither the framework nor the inclination to report this in context.
Having said that, even before the book arrives I have already had more conversations about spiritual union, "dark night", etc. in one day than in any of the past few months.
My guess is that we'll all have many such opportunities, and perhaps this will be a spur to our own growth ... how great is our God!
Posted by: Bob Lozano | August 24, 2007 at 08:46 PM
Jon, I can't afford to fly to Chicago; can I pray for your friend in California? :)
Posted by: Monica | August 24, 2007 at 09:10 PM
Mr. "Aristotle" needs to desperately read his own work! :-) Therein, (he must have forgotten :-)) he will find that he, Aristotle, posited and proved the First, Unmoved Mover (in the Physics Book VIII) and the reality of a eternal, immaterial, immovable, intellectual substance whose essence is actuality that is one (in the Metaphysics Book XII). In other words, GOD.
I am always amazed when "freethinker" atheists pose as Aristotle to "disprove" God; when, in fact, Aristotle gave proofs for God! It might behoove them to read and actually **think** about Aristotle's arguments...
Posted by: Michael Lee | August 25, 2007 at 03:12 AM
With this "news" about Mother Teresa come all the accusations of corruption. She took money from corrupt government officials, MADE dying people suffer more "for Jesus," etc. Some of the stuff I've seen is pretty vile. Has anyone come across a good answer to this stuff, or are we supposed to just respond with lame things like "She did the best she could"?
Posted by: Christopher | August 25, 2007 at 07:39 AM
My answer to such types is to suggest they keep their bigotry to themselves. Anti-Christian bigotry is usually behind such remarks.
Posted by: bill912 | August 25, 2007 at 07:47 AM
Reading some of the content of her letters is revealing--this was more than just a season of the dark night of the soul that we all face, but she really questioned her faith, God, and His Son Jesus Christ as to the genuineness and validity of faith.
That is something quite different.
I had a Romanist friend of mine who went and visited Mother Teresa a few years before her death. His was troubled as he told me of that brief meeting. What deeply surprised him was two key things: 1. she denied and rejected Jesus Christ as the only way to heaven; and 2. she displayed idol statues and paid homage to those "Hindu deities" in her hut. She prayed to them. As you can imagine, this news was very disturbing indeed to him.
Giving ones life to the poor is an admirable thing; but it cannot save and is impotent in producing eternal salvation. I pray this very giving, caring selfless woman repented of her sins, came to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of her life before she died. Otherwise she is under God's wrathful hand that will not cease for eternity.
John 14:6
Steve
Posted by: Steve Camp | August 25, 2007 at 09:35 AM
I wonder if his "Romanist" friend appreciates his intentional slur via the use of the pejorative "Romanist"?
I really think he wants the above drivel to be true. I wonder if he has any actual evidence to back up his above slander?
Nah! He'd have posted it if he did.
Posted by: bill912 | August 25, 2007 at 09:52 AM
bill912
I don't drive by post...
Please answer the concern voiced by my friend. What say you?
Steve
Posted by: Steve Camp | August 25, 2007 at 10:10 AM
I rest my case.
The heck of it is, he likely doesn't understand that he made my point.
Posted by: bill912 | August 25, 2007 at 10:13 AM
Yes, she questioned her faith, her relationship with God, even Jesus's love for her. But while she questioned her faith, I don't see that she questioned "the validity of faith" in a larger sense, i.e., for other Christians. All her doubts seem to have been for herself.
As troubling as this might seem, we should bear in mind that one can easily go through the Psalms and find similar struggles with darkness and despair. We tend to gloss over such difficulties in the Psalms because they're inspired scripture; it's much easier to look askance at letters from a "Romanist" nun.
Posted by: SDG | August 25, 2007 at 10:13 AM
"Questioning" does not mean "rejecting", as "temptation" does not mean "sin".
Posted by: bill912 | August 25, 2007 at 10:22 AM
SDG:
Though we disagree you are a refreshing voice of linear thinking here. Thank you for your sober reply.
bill912:
Don't take cheap shots---respond to the issue as SDG did.
Forget the personal testimony of my Romanist friend, here is Mother Teresa in her own words. Take some time and read them and then maybe respond intelligently, lucidly and with propriety.
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7
In her book, Life in the Spirit: Reflections, Meditations and Prayers, she says: “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. It matters to the individual what church he belongs to. If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life — his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation.” (Pages 81-82)
In an interview with Christian News a nun who worked with Mother Teresa was asked the following in regards to the Hindus they worked with, “These people are waiting to die. What are you telling them to prepare them for death and eternity?” She replied candidly, “We tell them to pray to their Bhagwan, to their gods.” (emphasis mine).
A Simple Path is a compilation of the teachings and meditations of Mother Teresa. In the foreword we read, “The Christian way has always been to love God and ones neighbor as oneself. Yet Mother Teresa has, perhaps with the influence of the East, distilled six steps to creating peace in ourselves and others that can be taken by anyone — even someone of no religious beliefs or of a religious background other than Christian — with no insult to beliefs or practices. This is why, when reading Mother Teresa’s words and those of her community, we may, if we choose, replace the references to Jesus with references to other godheads or symbols of divinity.” (emphasis mine).
Through the entire book there is never a hint that MT sees salvation in Jesus Christ as the only way. Rather we read things like, “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” (Page 31).
Yet some more quotes, “I love all religions. … If people become better Hindus, better Muslims, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there.” Or in another place, “All is God — Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, etc., all have access to the same God.”
I imagine that these are disturbing to read for anyone in the RCC. What is the truth here? What do you think? Can you provide quotes from MT that not only affirm the gospel of Jesus Christ as the only way for salvation; but also, where she denies her above assertions?
Sincerely,
Steve
Eph. 2:8-9
Posted by: Steve Camp | August 25, 2007 at 10:41 AM
(emphasis mine) in the first quote as well. My bad it was left out... Steve.
Posted by: Steve Camp | August 25, 2007 at 10:43 AM
Steve, my first thought was the same as Bill's - no evidence to back up the allegation. Are those the exact words Mother Teresa used, did your friend use a tape recorder, or did your friend paraphrase?
My second reaction was that there's no need to defend Mother Teresa's faith, to prove her faith. There's a huge difference between Mother Teresa's comments while in the dark night and the relativism that you've apparently perceived them to be.
Someone else will have to explain the Catholic Church's teaching on salvation of those with no knowledge of Jesus. She's not denying Jesus. One she's dealing with those close to death, so it's not like there's a gazillion amount of time for instruction.
Posted by: Mary Kay | August 25, 2007 at 11:26 AM
I recall reading a book a few years ago written by a member of Mother T's order. According to the nun, Mother T encouraged her sisters to attend a Hindu Ashram.
Posted by: Jeb Protestant | August 25, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Hey Steve,
Useing the pejorative term "Romanist" instead of Catholic certainly isn't helping your case. From my experience, when you use such pejorative terms people disregard everything you have to say because you have proven to be inconsiderate ans sloppy. Anything else you say after proving this is irrelevant and i can't take your "Romanist" as credible.
Posted by: Eric S. | August 25, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Steve,
You said in part: "Giving ones life to the poor is an admirable thing; but it cannot save and is impotent in producing eternal salvation."
Matthew 19.16,21: "And behold, one came up to him, saying, 'Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?'...Jesus said to him, 'If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.'"
So how, exactly, according to Jesus is giving one's life to the poor impotent?
Posted by: Brian Miles | August 25, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Eric S.:
Stay on topic... What do you think of these quotes by Mother Teresa? Is she representing the biblical gospel in what she is affirming?
Mary Kay:
When Mother Teresa is "dealing with those close to death, so it's not like there's a gazillion amount of time for instruction" that precipitates the point even more to proclaim to them the only hope of salvation through Jesus Christ. What did you think of her quotes? Can you biblically defend them?
Brian Miles:
So you do believe that giving your life to the poor is sufficient for salvation apart from faith in Jesus Christ as the only way, truth and life? Helping the poor grants you heaven... Thank you for being honest--though you're completely wrong.
Can anyone on this thread answer Mother Teresa's words above that all faiths lead to the same God and are sufficient for eternal life? In reality, isn't Mother Teresa, by her own words, a universalist?
Grace and peace,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7
Posted by: Steve Camp | August 25, 2007 at 01:09 PM
Eric S, you hit it right on the nose.
Posted by: bill912 | August 25, 2007 at 01:36 PM
Can anyone on this thread answer Mother Teresa's words above that all faiths lead to the same God and are sufficient for eternal life?
She did not say that. According to you she rather said, "If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life — his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation.” That is nothing more than a paraphrase of the doctrine that the invincibly ignorant will not be condemned for what they do not know.
Posted by: MIchael | August 25, 2007 at 01:44 PM
Steve,
Are you talking about "giving one's life to the poor", or just "helping the poor"? Important difference, no? In any case, as to what I believe, Matthew's Gospel could not be any clearer. When Jesus is asked point blank about how one obtains eternal life, he responds by saying: "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." Not only is faith implicit in this command, but more importantly it demonstrates that there would be no saving faith at all (only dead faith) unless Jesus' command is actaully obeyed.
Posted by: Brian Miles | August 25, 2007 at 02:11 PM
Michael, thanks. For the life of me, earlier I couldn't come up with that phrase that the invincibly ignorant will not be condemned.
Steve,
that precipitates the point even more to proclaim to them the only hope of salvation through Jesus Christ.
Michael has already mentioned the teaching about the invincibly ignorant. The people Mother Teresa took in simply don't have the energy to start some brand new course of instruction. So Mother Teresa and her sisters tend to their needs, being the presence of Christ for them. Try Matthew 25:35-40.
If people become better Hindus, better Muslims, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there.”
Try the beginning of psalm 42. "As the deer longs for living streams, so my soul is yearning for you, my God. My soul is thirsting for God, the God of my life; when can I enter and see the face of God?"
While I can't speak for Mother Teresa, but for those of us who don't do direct evangelization, there's the view that when people search for God, their thirst will lead them to Him. Think of it as the Montessori method rather than SATs.
Posted by: Mary Kay | August 25, 2007 at 04:05 PM
Thanks, Steve C.
Frankly, I admit that there are troubling aspects of Mother Teresa's articulation of the Catholic faith, which I think any orthodox Catholic should acknowledge. I have always been uncomfortable with some things she has been quoted as saying in this regard.
The Catholic faith clearly teaches that Jesus is the only way of salvation (e.g., [i]Dominus Iesus[/i]). While it may be possible for individuals outside the Catholic faith, even individuals in other religions lacking explicit faith in Jesus, to be given the grace of an inner disposition that is implicitly open to salvation through Christ, it is always and only through Christ that salvation comes. Believing Muslims may die and go to heaven; if so, they are saved by Jesus, through an inner openness to the true God's will that [i]would have[/i] embraced Jesus as savior had they truly understood the truth with clarity.
Incidentally, it is similarly through such implicit openness to God's unknown will that we may hope that Steve Camp will be saved, on the understanding that if Steve truly understood with clarity that Jesus wished him to belong to the one true Church governed by the successor of St. Peter, he would surely obey. :-)
That said, I can't help concluding that Mother Teresa sometimes expressed herself in ways that at least sound uncomfortably like unacceptable religious indifferentism or false syncretism. There may be ways of parsing statements like "We tell them to pray to their Bhagwan, to their gods" such that they [i]could[/i] be understood as not contrary to the unique truth of Christianity, but I appreciate the common-sense wisdom of a certain priest-writer who encouraged readers to "avoid an expression which can no doubt be correctly understood after much explanation, but which may give rise to many misunderstandings."
That said, I think there is more to be said for a correct understanding of Mother Teresa's sayings than Steve C is so far allowing. A passage from the CCC recently highlighted in another thread by our resident troll, as inapplicable as it was in that context, bears repeating here: "Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it."
This doesn't mean overlooking problematic elements, but it does mean not exaggerating the scope of the problem or making things more problematic than they need to be. For example, a quotation from the foreword of A Simple Path isn't necessarily the most reliable source regarding what Mother Teresa herself actually believed.
Posted by: SDG | August 25, 2007 at 05:04 PM
Steve Camp:
Please take note of THIS POST.
Posted by: Jimmy Akin | August 25, 2007 at 05:40 PM
Steve DG,
I don't have a problem with a Catholic saying that Mother T. isn't the most reliable guide to Catholicism and leaving it at that.
Yet I have heard Catholics make the argument that "you Prots don't have saints like Mother T." And before she is declared a saint, shouldn't Rome get to the bottom of what she allegedly taught?
Posted by: Jeb Protestant | August 25, 2007 at 05:54 PM
Mary Kay:
So your view of evangelism is: don't tell anyone about the gospel and salvation through Jesus Christ alone. Because if they die in their ignorance, they will be given a special grace and still be saved and granted heaven some how...
Did I get that correct? And you have the authority of the Word of God to that end found where?
This is why many Christians believe that RCCers are more loyal to the teachings of Trent, VI, VIi and the 1994 Catechism than they are to the Word of God.
Grace and peace,
Steve
2 Cor. 3:5
Posted by: Steve Camp | August 25, 2007 at 06:54 PM
SDG:
You said, "That said, I can't help concluding that Mother Teresa sometimes expressed herself in ways that at least sound uncomfortably like unacceptable religious indifferentism or false syncretism. There may be ways of parsing statements like "We tell them to pray to their Bhagwan, to their gods" such that they [i]could[/i] be understood as not contrary to the unique truth of Christianity, but I appreciate the common-sense wisdom of a certain priest-writer who encouraged readers to "avoid an expression which can no doubt be correctly understood after much explanation, but which may give rise to many misunderstandings."
Exactly... Thank you at least for being honest here.
Jimmy A
Truth can always stand the test of scrutiny; error never wants to be challenged. Please take not of THIS POST.
Grace and peace,
Steve
1 Cor. 15:1-3
Posted by: Steve Camp | August 25, 2007 at 07:00 PM
Jeb,
I don't have a problem with a Catholic saying that Mother T. isn't the most reliable guide to Catholicism and leaving it at that. That's not what SDG said.
What SDG was:
a quotation from the foreword of A Simple Path isn't necessarily the most reliable source regarding what Mother Teresa herself actually believed.
SDG said that a quotation isn't necessarily what Mother Teresa believed and you somehow twisted that into Mother Teresa somehow not being the "most reliable guide to Catholicism."
Posted by: Mary Kay | August 25, 2007 at 07:03 PM
Mary Kay,
I wasn't presenting it as a literal quote of what Steve DG said.
But what he did say is quite close to what I said:
"Frankly, I admit that there are troubling aspects of Mother Teresa's articulation of the Catholic faith, which I think any orthodox Catholic should acknowledge. I have always been uncomfortable with some things she has been quoted as saying in this regard."
A person who doesn't articulate things well isn't the most reliable guide, even if the person's fault is a lack of clarity.
Posted by: Jeb Protestant | August 25, 2007 at 07:16 PM
Did I get that correct?
No, not correct. Well, maybe yes and no.
Anyone who knows me - whether they're Catholic, neutral or antagonistic to Catholicsm - knows how important my Catholic faith is to me. They know they can ask any question about Catholicism and get an understandable answer. They don't agree with it, but it's not like I don't talk about my faith.
But it's true that I don't go around telling people that there salvation is through Jesus alone. Or only through the Catholic Church. There are two reasons for that. One is that the most powerful witnesses in my own life were not words, but the actions of deeply devout Catholics. That's what I hope people see by my actions.
Some people have the gift for what I call direct evangelization, but I don't. The second reason is that it reminds me of a sales pitch, so I don't do it.
Perhaps a third reason is that only God provides the grace for someone to accept Him. While some people simply don't know about Jesus, that doesn't describe most people I know. They've heard the Gospel, but previous experience has been an obstacle. So I clarify where I see misunderstandings.
Because if they die in their ignorance, they will be given a special grace and still be saved and granted heaven some how...
Catholic teaching says that holds if the ignorance is unavoidable. So people still have the obligation to both learn the Gospel and tell others of the Gospel. I just do my telling by actions rather than words.
Steve, how much experience have you had with people near death or even dealing with the severe pain of say immediate post-op or severe injury? I had a bout of it and even for familiar material, I had an attention span of maybe 10 minutes. I couldn't have focused on new material if I wanted to.
I think you're eagerness to go in and "win converts" has maybe an unrealistic picture of how debilitated the people are. The thought just occurred to me that given what others have said about your being a musician, that perhaps you have the flexibility in your schedule to visit a place where Mother Teresa's sisters are. They're in other places besides India. That would probably be the best explanation of what they do.
Does that answer your question?
Posted by: Mary Kay | August 25, 2007 at 07:41 PM
In mass-market religious books from "mainstream" publishers, it's pretty common for the editors to downplay the Christian convictions of the people being profiled, quoted, etc. That's what's happening here. The editor wants to make Mother Teresa's words palatable to people who aren't committed Christians. It's about selling books.
So maybe Jeb didn't understand SDG's point about the foreword: Mother Teresa didn't write it. That's why it can't be taken as if it were representative of her views.
For all we know, Mother T probably wasn't even asked to review or approve the foreword. Do you think she spent time checking out stuff that people wrote about her?
Posted by: Richard Chonak | August 25, 2007 at 07:43 PM
Jeb,
A person who doesn't articulate things well isn't the most reliable guide, even if the person's fault is a lack of clarity.
But it's not a lack of clarity, nor a lack of articulation. I know what Mother Teresa was talking about because other Catholics have described the same thing.
I will grant you that it's not the best place to start as an introduction to Catholicism. There's too much background, too much context, that is not obvious to a newcomer.
But the fact that it's not the best starting point does not invalidate the authenticity of her faith, of her Catholicism.
Do you see the difference?
Posted by: Mary Kay | August 25, 2007 at 07:47 PM
The most troubling thing I have read so far is the missionary's statement that they tell the Hindus to pray to their gods. If they actually say this in an explicit way, then I find this all but incontrovertably and hugely problematic. If, on the other hand, she is saying something in a conversational way and what she is referring to is a practice of telling the people to pray to God "as best they understand Him" at the time of their deaths, or to pray to God without specifying a god in particular - in other words, something along the lines of telling them to pray and ask God to lead them home rather than trying to preach something to people on their deathbeds that would require extended periods of time for them to accept, then this would be far more acceptable. If they are saying telling them "say a prayer to Vishnu," then that's about as bad as you can get.
If we believe that God calls to each soul at the moment of death, as Catholics - and many non-Catholics - do, then I think that the general idea of not trying to preach to people on their deathbeds is very profound. We all know that we are supposed to be Christ to others, and this I believe is the key here. I have long belieeved that it is the vocation of every Christian to be Christ live in such a way that at the moment of death, when the true God of the universe makes that final call to a person who does not know Him, He can tell them that if they come to Him, He will treat them as we did. If God is able to say to some person that I may never have had the chance to preach to, "I'm God. I know you don't know me, but if you accept my invitation, I will treat you like Shane did," then I believe I have succeded in being a Christian. One can hardly blame a person for rejecting the invitation to an eternity with Someone they don't even know. We need to make sure that these people do know God before they die, even if they don't know His Name.
And in this regard, I think the missionaries of charity are fantastic - as long as it is that, and not the explicit encouragment of idolatry. I think this is something worth investigating further, if it is possible.
Posted by: Shane | August 25, 2007 at 07:51 PM
Steve,
While I'm not even going to begin to address the Hindu gods thing (since I obviously cant; I didn't have that conversation, and I have seen absolutely no further evidence of such a practice), I think it's important that we distinguish something here.
People like MT and her order aren't concerned with evangelization. It's not their gift/charism, at least not directly. They simply go in and attempt to bring Christ to the region through their acts of charity. They don't cause disruptions with local religions, don't actively seek to convert the masses. They just quite simply attempt to care for the poor and the dying. Even in the face of death, religion just simply isn't the issue.
Stateside, you'll see plenty of Catholic Charities offices dedicated to that very same goal.
Posted by: Josh Miller | August 25, 2007 at 07:53 PM
Mary Kay,
Steve can speak for himself, but this is what he said:
"Frankly, I admit that there are troubling aspects of Mother Teresa's articulation of the Catholic faith, which I think any orthodox Catholic should acknowledge. I have always been uncomfortable with some things she has been quoted as saying in this regard."
So, if Mother T has been quoted accurately (which of course is a big 'if') then he would say that her 'articulation' isn't great.
Posted by: Jeb Protestant | August 25, 2007 at 07:54 PM
Jeb, sorry, I somehow skipped over SDG's saying that. I should probably hear what SDG finds are "troubling aspects of Mother Teresa's articulation of the Catholic faith"
But like Scarlett O'Hara, I'll deal with it tomorrow. It's time for some sleep here on the East coast.
Posted by: Mary Kay | August 25, 2007 at 08:07 PM
Steve Camp (et al.),
Just a passing thought or two before I head off to bed...
Truth can always stand the test of scrutiny; error never wants to be challenged.
Would that be the reason James White doesn't have a comment box on his site? (And as a pre-emptive strike: No, two hours of the "Dividing Line" is not an acceptable substitute for a direct source of continuous literary critique)
Also, as a general note, I get the sense that a select few people here seem almost relieved or perhaps satisfied by Mother Theresa's lack of total perfection. To this end, I'd like to make two quick points. First, I think we should be VERY careful when attempting to ascribe motives or a particular viewpoint to a person based on secondary information (a forward to a book or a quote allegedly from one of her sisters). This goes double if the person happens to be deceased and can't defend themselves. Personally, knowing half the things I've said in my life that weren't clear or were just plain garbled, I'd be much happier if I knew that people quoting me 70 years from now would give me the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming the worst (This again would seem to go double if I should be so blessed as to live a life such that my works of charity would bear witness in a global sense, as Mother Theresa's has).
Second, I'd just like to add for the sake of commenting that even though Mother Theresa did struggle with her personal faith throughout her life, any instances of faltering or hesitancy on her part would most certainly not give credence or merit to any other individual or their arguments against the faith. Nor does it lower the bar for Holiness that God has set before us all. We may humbly take solace in the fact that someone of her devotion and life would struggle just as we do, thus looking up to her as an older sister in Christ, but to look down on Mother Theresa and judge as though her troubles somehow afford us some bonus or advantage is incorrect. I suggest that if we're in the habit (no pun intended) of branding her as a "Universalist" or a relativist without compelling documented evidence, we might take the opportunity to look deep into our hearts and questions our motives. Perhaps we have a plank in our eye that's obstructing our view?
God Bless,
Mr. Spock
Posted by: Mr. Spock | August 25, 2007 at 08:26 PM
Because if they die in their ignorance, they will be given a special grace and still be saved and granted heaven some how...
Quite the contrary, they will be judged according to what they know. Simple as that. To introduce to a dying man the gospel of Christ and to demand his assent on his deathbed (or alley) when he may not have been given the grace to accept or even have the presence of mind to understand it in his last moments could do more harm than good. In the worst case you could be helping to condemn him.
Regarding Mother Theresa's understanding of Catholicism: she was not a theologian and may even have personally held slightly heretical ideas. Many of us do, albeit unintentionally. Problematic elements in her understanding should be considered in that light.
Posted by: MIchael | August 25, 2007 at 08:35 PM
I confirm the broad outlines of what Jeb is saying about my POV.
I might want to further qualify that statement, but let's leave it as it stands for now.
At the very least, I should want to see this argument further nuanced and less triumphalistically articulated. Catholics should remember there is a lot to be said regarding the work of the Holy Spirit within those ecclesial communities lacking the fulness of the Faith, not to mention perfidy and treason within the visible bounds of the Church. We all live in glass houses, and on all sides, even among the heathens, are a few who put the vast crowd of us to shame.
Having said that, I shouldn't be surprised to find that the Catholic tradition has a special genius for producing extraordinary heroic virtue. In fact, I think it could be not unreasonably be argued that the extraordinary spirit of service to the poorest of the poor that was the essence of Mother Teresa's charism, vocation and spirituality is profoundly and inextricably connected with and revelatory of her "catholicity," of the extent to which she stood in and was shaped by the tradition and culture of the Catholic Church, whereas what we find troubling about some of her articulations regarding other religions and the like, however representative of or integral to her overall worldview they may or may not have been, are not only not necessarily the most helpful point of reference regarding official Catholic teaching, but are simply not connected to or revelatory of her catholicity and the shaping of Catholic tradition and culture upon her being.
I am aware that pressed too far this argument becomes a parody in the form of "Everything good is caused by what I agree with, and everything bad is caused by what I disagree with." (Christopher Hitchens does this with regard to religion.) However, as I am speaking here not only of the Faith in its eternal truth but also of its cultural and historical baggage, I am certainly more than willing to acknowledge bad as well as good in the total package. In other words, I'm willing acknowledge there are in the Church some problems that are in some way characteristic of the Catholic experience. It's just that when it comes to Mother Teresa, I happen to think that it is what the world admires her for that is characteristic of the Catholic experience, and what troubles us is not. (I wouldn't necessarily be able to say this regarding every well-known Catholic figure.)
I certainly think that this question should be very seriously considered -- and under B16 I think we can safely suppose that it will be. That said, it is not clear to me that Mother Teresa's dicta in this regard are sufficiently systematic and analytical to permit any such "getting to the bottom." And of course either she is in Heaven or she isn't, and if she is, then she is a saint, and the Church can say so.
Posted by: SDG | August 25, 2007 at 08:41 PM
Yes. That is precisely why those who make inflammatory charges should be willing to substantiate them, instead of overreacting with charges of "limiting honest and forthright discourse." Because truth can stand the test of scrutiny, and error never wants to be challenged.
Posted by: SDG | August 25, 2007 at 08:44 PM
It was the testimony of Mother Theresa's life that led my future wife to leave Lutheranism and become Catholic.
It was my future wife's testimony to me that led me to fulfill my Baptist faith by becoming Catholic.
Call it saintly intercession, if you will.
With regards to the accusations that Mother Theresa actively encourage the worship of pagan gods:
No doubt if she had held a stern view requiring conversion to Catholicism before receiving care at the hands of her sisters we would have nothing but hellfire from non-Christians and Protestants.
They would rightly proclaim the whole enterprise a dirty trick that "forced" the sick and the poor to believe.
It is an established practice whenever the Church engages in charity for the poor and sick in non-Catholic lands (spiritual correction of a coreligionist is also a form of charity but does not apply here for obvious reasons) to perform those charitable acts while offering the iron-clad promise not to proselytize those receiving care and aid.
It follows the very teachings of Christ from his story of the good Samaritan. We must do good for goodness sake and not try to opportunistically exploit other people's momentary weakness as a chance to exercise the sin of spiritual pride.
This means not converting the Jew into Samaritanism but becoming his brother through brotherly love.
My wife has had similar experiences providing for the needs of black Muslim refugees from Africa who escaped to America because of the violent racism preached by their own co-religionists in Africa. She did not hide her faith, but she made sure their physical and spiritual needs were met. She took them to their parish once for a dinner, but never made continued care contingent upon conversion.
When you provide for the needs of those who are not in your faith, you have three choices:
1) Make care available only if they convert
2) Make care available but only attend to their material needs
3) Shower them with love and attention and meet all their needs as best as you can.
The first is not Christian.
The second denies the importance of the supernatural.
The third is agape.
What Mother Theresa did should surprise every one of us. It should surprise us that this obvious act of supernatural charity is anything but obvious to the world.
Posted by: StubbleSpark | August 25, 2007 at 09:10 PM
I just want to point out to the non-Catholics on the list, who may get a false impression from some of the Catholic comments made. The Catholic Church in the CCC is clear that invincible ignorance can not save you. You must have supernatural faith. For as Trent clearly defined faith is the BEGINNING of all justification. The CCC says that God can give the gift of faith in ways known only to Himself, but if a person is to be saved they must possess supernatural faith BEFORE they die.
"Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men." CCC 848
Posted by: Christopher Sarsfield | August 25, 2007 at 09:12 PM
Correct, and with it the grace of regeneration, also called sanctifying grace.
Posted by: SDG | August 25, 2007 at 09:17 PM
Jeb Protestant:
You said, "Steve can speak for himself, but this is what he said: 'Frankly, I admit that there are troubling aspects of Mother Teresa's articulation of the Catholic faith, which I think any orthodox Catholic should acknowledge. I have always been uncomfortable with some things she has been quoted as saying in this regard."
BINGO.
Posted by: Steve Camp | August 25, 2007 at 09:18 PM
Steve Camp has asked for me to respond to some reported statements by Mother Theresa. I'm pressed for time this weekend, but here goes. . . .
First, I'd deal with the quotations he offers as follows:
1) Quotations not from Mother Theresa herself
In an interview with Christian News a nun who worked with Mother Teresa was asked the following in regards to the Hindus they worked with, “These people are waiting to die. What are you telling them to prepare them for death and eternity?” She replied candidly, “We tell them to pray to their Bhagwan, to their gods.” (emphasis mine).
A Simple Path is a compilation of the teachings and meditations of Mother Teresa. In the foreword we read, “The Christian way has always been to love God and ones neighbor as oneself. Yet Mother Teresa has, perhaps with the influence of the East, distilled six steps to creating peace in ourselves and others that can be taken by anyone — even someone of no religious beliefs or of a religious background other than Christian — with no insult to beliefs or practices. This is why, when reading Mother Teresa’s words and those of her community, we may, if we choose, replace the references to Jesus with references to other godheads or symbols of divinity.” (emphasis mine).
Since these quotations are not from Mother Theresa herself, I do not know the degree to which they reflect her own views.
2) Quotations from Mother Theresa herself
In her book, Life in the Spirit: Reflections, Meditations and Prayers, she says: “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. It matters to the individual what church he belongs to. If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life — his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation.” (Pages 81-82)
The first part of this (up to "we will be satisfied") is a statement of policy rather than a statement of theology.
What follows is a statement that I find theologically problematic, although defensible in part. It speaks to the condition of an individual who has strong religious convictions ("if that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for him or her," "if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search"). An individual in this case may be in a state of what is commonly termed "invincible ignorance" (i.e., innocent ignorance of the truth of the Christian gospel).
When dealing with an individual who is dying and invincibly ignorant of the Christian gospel, it is at least arguable that the appropriate thing to do is to allow the individual to remain in invincible ignorance and entrust his salvation to God.
Nevertheless, I am uncomfortable with the reported quotation's articulation of this matter, and I find it problematic in several respects.
“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” (Page 31).
I find this quite problematic. While I can imagine constructions that could be put upon it that could bring an element of truth to the fore (e.g., people of all religious convictions should be helped to become more loving, more moral people), I find the statement on its face to be problematic at best.
“I love all religions."
I regard this statement in the same way as the previous one. While there are elements of truth in every religion (or else people wouldn't be drawn to them), this does not mean that every religion is remotely adequate or even positive on balance. As then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger pointed out, some religions are sick and destructive on balance, even apart from the fact that they do not correspond fully to the truth that is revealed in Christ.
"If people become better Hindus, better Muslims, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there.”
I regard this as true but trivial. Something is growing, but this does not mean that what is growing is adequate or even positive.
“All is God — Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, etc., all have access to the same God.”
The statement that "all is God" is obviously untrue if taken literally (that would entail pantheism). If it is taken non-literally--for example, to mean that God works in the lives of all people regardless of their religion--then this is true, but it does not follow that all people are in the condition that God would have them be in. Otherwise Jesus would not have come and commanded us to preach the gospel.
Similarly, the statement that all have access to the same God is true (if anyone prays to the God of the Bible, he will hear them), but it does not mean that all have equal access to him via the distorted understanding of God that they may have due to their religious convictions.
In summary, I find (and have found for years) a number of statements reported to have been made by Mother Theresa to be theologically problematic. While the fact is not to be diminished that she was not a theologian and thus should not be expected to make theologically precise (or even correct) statements on all occasions, I have had a concern about what she is reported to have said in this area, as it does not appear to me to fully correspond with the teaching of Scripture or the Catholic Church.
I have not undertaken the effort to verify whether she actually made these statements, but I find the statements themselves problematic.
If I were the individual assigned by the Holy See to argue against her canonization, statements of this nature--and whether she made them and what she meant by them--would be carefully examined as potential elements in the brief I had been assigned by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints to make for why she should not be held up to the faithful (via sainthood) as a model to be emulated.
Posted by: Jimmy Akin | August 25, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Jimmy
Thank you for your answers and I will look forward to more in the future with you. BUT, I would still like to have you address these statements within the context of God's Word rather than opinion.
Two examples:
1. As Luke records in Acts: "Acts 4:10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by this name this man stands here before you in good health. Acts 4:11 “He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone. Acts 4:12 “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” (NASB)
1.a. This Scripture clearly refutes MT's claim that "If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life — his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation.”
2. Also, the Apostle John states clearly, "1 John 2:22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
1 John 2:23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also."
2.a. This would clearly refute MT's claim that "All is God — Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, etc., all have access to the same God.”
One further question to ponder: the issue here goes to salvation, not to canonization. Do you think that Scripture teaches that one who holds to such views specious errant doctrine is consistent with the profession and confession of a truly regenerated believer in the Lord Jesus Christ? Would not those unsound doctrines constitute "another gospel" - which is no gospel at all? AND worthy of anathema? (Gal. 1:6-9).
Grace and peace,
Steve
2 Tim. 3:1-5
Posted by: Steve Camp | August 25, 2007 at 11:19 PM
Steven J Camp--
No one expects you to understand a spiritual giant such as Mother Teresa, or her interior life at all. No one expects folks who base everything in their faith on FEELINGS to understand the "Dark Night of the Soul." That is a maturity level beyond your comprehension. So, instead of making a bigger spectacle of yourself by the wild accusations and idiotic statements you make, just run along and go play. When you grow up--if you grow up-- then come back and we will discuss this concept with you.
Posted by: Doubtin Tom | August 26, 2007 at 03:21 AM
One point I would make on Mother Teresa and her order not pushing conversion on the dying whom they cared for in their last lonely hours.
During the Irish potato famine, there were many Protestant so-called charities which provided a bit of soup and bread to the starving masses. The poor would stand in line for hours and when they reached the head of the line, they would be asked to recite a declaration of rejection of the Catholic Faith, and allegience to the Church and the Pope before they were given their tiny ration of food.
This was a dispicable practice and smacks not of charity but of arrogance and contempt for the poor. And it is not surprising that the ones who are suggesting in this combox that Mother Teresa's sisters should have done in India what the Protestants did in Ireland are not the Catholics, but indeed Protestants. Some people never learn.
Posted by: Doubtin Tom | August 26, 2007 at 03:37 AM
Steve DG:
"That said, it is not clear to me that Mother Teresa's dicta in this regard are sufficiently systematic and analytical to permit any such 'getting to the bottom.'"
Why not? Read what she said, talk to people who knew her, ask how she ran her order and what she told sisters who were converts from Hinduism.
Mother Teresa was quoted more than once saying "God wants Christians to be the best Christians, Hindus to be the best Hindus, etc." so I think she must have something definite in mind.
Posted by: Jeb Protestant | August 26, 2007 at 04:00 AM
Steve, Job 40:1-2
Posted by: Mary Kay | August 26, 2007 at 04:07 AM
Steve,
A couple of comments before I get to MT statements to put somethings in perspective. First in all charity you and I have a completely different understanding of the Gospel message. So you not only object to your understanding of what MT said, but what the Catholic Church teaches. So, no matter what I say about MT's statements, you will never accept them, without your own conversion.
Second, when someone is Catholic, and profess to be, and has shown docility to the teaching authority of the Church, you give them the benefit of the doubt. You also look at their entire body of writing. For example, you believe St. Paul believed in your Gospel, so when you read him tell born again Christians to be careful because liars, adulterers, etc. will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven, you interpret those words to mean something different, then someone who is only reading that section of St. Paul and is only familiar with that section. You do the same when Paul talks about the possibility of him becoming a cast away.
Finally, the Church allows Catholics to purposefully deceive someone using for example a mental reservation, or an ambiguous statement when the person they are communicating with has no right to the information, or to protect themselves or those they love. MT was working in an area where converting people is against the law. A place where she and her order would have been banished from if she went around bragging about making converts. With that said let's look at HER statements, as opposed to introductions to books, or statements by her religious.
MT's quote about a person being on "his path to salvation." Because MT is a Catholic, and has never shown a hint of rejecting the Catholic Church's teaching on this matter, I would say she is being deliberately ambiguous. In my view the only person that could have no doubt and therefore not be seeking is a Catholic. Therefore, the person is in the True Church. All those that are outside of the Church can not be without doubts as to their path because they lack that union with Christ that all mean need to be without doubt, which union occurs in the highest degree in this world through the Sacraments of the Church, especially the Eucharist. You may say I am twisting her words, but what I am doing is giving them an orthodox Catholic meaning, without contradicting them.
With regard to MT's statement about making Hindus better Hindus, etc. You could look at it as a Hindu would, the way you are, or you could look at it the way a Catholic does. A better Hindu to a Hindu might mean more devout in the Hindu religion, more committed to the Hindu religion. But to me a better Hindu is one that doubts the false beliefs of his religion, and begins to question their religion. I do not see how seeing MT's example a hindu would become a better Hindu in the sense of practicing and devout. On the contrary, seeing MT would make him question his religion, and look into the Catholic Faith. Again my explanation does not contradict the words, it only shows a different perspective from which to look at the words.
With regard to MT's statement about all having access to God. Again all do have access to God. All can pray, for Christ enlightens every man that is in the world, and if they do not recognize the light it is because they prefer the darkness. You and I are most likely going to disagree here. I am assuming you believe in a limited redemption, therefore only the chosen have access to God, but here the disagreement is between you and the Church, not the Church and MT. With regard to all is God, if you change that to All are God's I think that is closer to the meaning. The idea that MT was a pantheist, is charge that would be in contradiction to much that MT has written and said.
Finally, I would just remind you again that MT was in country where converting people was illegal, and that is why she was not obvious in her public statements. In every chapel of her order there is a picture of Christ crucified and the words "I thirst," quoting one Our Lord's final words. His thirst was for souls, and MT knew this, and that is why she had that quote put there. MT had a thirst to bring people to Christ, and I have little doubt that she did. I am sure she converted many on their death bed, or perhaps the priest she called in did the converting, but she wanted people to be united to Christ AND His Church. I am sure of it.
May our Lady keep you forever in the blue shadow of her mantle.
Posted by: Christopher Sarsfield | August 26, 2007 at 04:37 AM
Steve, why does Jimmy need to address these in the light of Scripture? These aren't exactly controversial ideas. Neither Catholics nor Protestants believe that a person may be saved by anyone except Christ. Neither Catholics nor Protestants hold that worshipping Hindu idols or praying to Hindu Gods would be acceptable at all. Neither Jimmy nor anybody else here needs to quote a Scripture passage condemning such things, and neither Jimmy nor anyone else here is going to quote a verse trying to defend these things, because none of us believe that there is one.
Quoting Scripture is a thing that is sometimes useful when two persons or groups disagree over what Scripture says. It allows people to try to establish what Scripture actually does say on a subject. But we are all in agreement here about what Scripture says. It says we shall have no other gods before the Lord. It tells us not to worship, pray, or serve idols or other gods. It tells us that thre is no other name in heaven by which man may be saved than Jesus Christ. We agree on all of this.
The only real question is what Mother Theresa actually said or what her statements mean. This is what Jimmy was addressing. He was reading her statements and commenting on what his feelings are about them, both if they mean what they seem to at face value and what more acceptable interpretations one might have. In fact, he seems to find them almost wholly unacceptable even given the chance of a more generous interpretation.
We're already at the stage where we agree on what Scripture says. Quoting it now is not at issue, but applying it. And Jimmy and the rest of us are trying to apply it by looking at Mother Theresa's words and questioning how closely they match it or how far they stray from it. The only way Jimmy could look at her words in the light of Scripture would be if he took his post on the subject nearly verbatim and added in every paragraph that the reason he finds these things troubling or problematic is because Scripture says such and such here and such and such there, but again you and he and the rest of us agree on this.
So I would like to ask you to explain why you want Jimmy and/or anyone else to look at her words in the light of Scripture. I think we would like to oblige your requests, but we really don't understand what more you are asking for. Please help us understand, and I am sure many will do their best. God bless.
Posted by: Shane | August 26, 2007 at 05:26 AM
Shane, thanks for some much-needed lucity and incisiveness.
Posted by: SDG | August 26, 2007 at 05:28 AM
That's the right way to investigate; I'm just saying sometimes such investigations are not able to end in a conclusive way due to lack of a systematic approach in the source material. Even with the likes of a Luther, let alone a St. Paul, scholars continue to debate the true meaning of the teachings.
One of the controversies around Mother Teresa and her order has to do with the surreptitious practice of covert baptisms. The claim is that Mother Teresa secretly taught her nuns to ask dying non-Christian patients if they would be interested in a "ticket to Heaven," and if they replied in the affirmative, this was took to indicate implicit desire for the grace of baptism, and the nuns would surreptitiously baptize them under the cover of cooling their foreheads with a damp cloth. I don't know whether the claim is true, but it seems at least plausible to me.
Whatever one thinks of such a practice from any of a half-dozen perspectives, at the very least it suggests belief in a unique soteriological value in the Christian way of salvation. Mother Teresa may have said "God wants Christians to be the best Christians, Hindus to be the best Hindus," etc., but we may also have reason to say that she believed it is better to die a Christian than to die a Hindu.
So, ascertaining what she meant by "God wants Christians to be the best Christians, Hindus to be the best Hindus," etc., may not be as simple as conducting a few interviews and so forth.
Posted by: SDG | August 26, 2007 at 05:50 AM
One should also note that India has laws against conversions.
I suspect that the early Christians, when the lions were in full force, might also have said equivocal things in the course of pursuing conversions.
Posted by: Mary | August 26, 2007 at 08:17 AM
SDG
"but we may also have reason to say that she believed it is better to die a Christian than to die a Hindu."
Where? Quote the source and show me. I gave you direct quotes from MT--you just gave me opinion; hearsay. That is not permitted on this blog. Haven't you read the rules? :-)
Shane:
"So I would like to ask you to explain why you want Jimmy and/or anyone else to look at her words in the light of Scripture."
Because the Word of God is the only objective truth and standard by which all doctrine is derived. (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Jude 3; 2 Peter 1:3-4; Psalm 19:7-11; Psalm 138:2; 2 Tim. 4:1-5)
Mary Kay:
Once again you don't understand the discussion some of us are trying to have; and you try to list a verse that you take completely out of its context. BUT, at least you tried to go to the Scriptures and for that you are unique here.
Lastly,
Doubtin Tom
"So, instead of making a bigger spectacle of yourself by the wild accusations and idiotic statements you make, just run along and go play. When you grow up--if you grow up-- then come back and we will discuss this concept with you."
Its this kind of intellectual, fact based, lucid, Scripture foundational reasoning that makes me want to repent of any thing I have ever learned about the RCC. Jimmy, you do draw the finest of Catholic theologians to your blog. Pleasure to dialogue with them.
Steve
Posted by: Steve Camp | August 26, 2007 at 09:00 AM
+J.M.J+
Mother Teresa has often been misquoted, even by devout Catholics. For instance, there is the claim that she once said that Communion in the hand is the greatest sin of our time. Actually, she told someone privately that it saddened her when she saw people receive Communion in the hand - which is not the same as saying it is a sin.
So maybe we should tread carefully with all these alleged "quotes," let alone the second-hand rumors. We could be dealing with the sin of calumny.
After reading what he posted above, esp. the "Romanist" remark, I don't think I'll ever be able to listen to Steve Camp's music again. I guess his anti-Catholicism shouldn't surprise me, though; it's practically endemic to Evangelicalism.
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie
Eph. 2:10
Posted by: Rosemarie | August 26, 2007 at 09:09 AM