Thank you, father, for being one of the few priests in the Church with the intestional fortitude to speak the truth.

It is interesting that the Society of St. Pius X was brought into the discussion by the posters when you never mentioned the society in your homily. There will be much discussion by moral theologians in the years to come about the morally of the acts of the Society of St. Pius X and the parishners who attend their chapels in light of an ecumenical council that has not been properly implemented in 45 years.

Pax et Bonum!

Dear Reesorville,

There are multiple sources for those quotes but here are some sources:

1) Mother Teresa, A Simple Path, ed. Lucinda Vardey (New York: Ballantine Books, 1995), 31

ii) Nina Morgan, Mother Teresa: Saint of the Poor (Austin: Raintree Steck–Vaughn, 1998), 38–39.

iii) I believe you are thinking of the following quote:

“We never try to convert those who receive [aid from Missionaries of Charity] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God’s presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men—simply better—we will be satisfied” (Mother Teresa, Life in the Spirit: Reflections, Meditations, and Prayers (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1983), 81; Mother Teresa: The Case for The Cause, 47).

These quotes are very common in books about Mother Teresa. When I first read them I was very shocked that they were her teachings. It was not until I did further research that I discovered the source of her theology. One thing is for sure, Mother Teresa did not get those teachings from Jesus, the Saints, or Vatican II.

Dear stchadwick,

As you see, there are priests who believe Mother Teresa is an unworthy candidate for canonization. If you read my book, and I hope you do, you will read a truly objective presentation of Mother Teresa’s virtues and vices. I promise you that you could hate everything I say in the book and still believe you received your money’s worth in research.

CathPresbyter has thoroughly answered your posts but I want to make a couple of comments.

I am so glad that you care enough about this subject to ask questions and make comments. However, there is a disturbing trend I see in your posts. You seem to have a hermeneutic of discontinuity—that was then this is now. In your first posts you said:

“One probably wont be as successful preaching, like in centuries past, by going to a foreign land of nonchristians as the apostles did.”

Now you say:

“Sure, there were many popes of the early centuries that would have also uttered similarly to Pope Eugene - Innocent III and Boniface VIII for example. But that was largely my point is saying we live in a different world today with the ushering in and monumental spread of noncatholic christianity. Would those same popes have ever agreed that the Holy Spirit could ever have existed in other christian churches apart from Rome? Of course not, but that is what She believes today. Not because sin has changed, but because the subjectivity of sin and how it relates to mankind has.”

Have you ever reflected on the connection between the Gospel and its proclamation? The two are not divorced. Are you sure that the reason why your friends are not converting has nothing to do with the message and manner you bring them? Catholicism is not the evolving faith. It is “the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). We do not ask the world what message they want to hear from us, but we proclaim the news to them that is good. If you are going to evangelize people you must have the evangel. Real conversion is impossible without the Gospel.

”I understand that beatifications arent readily accepted as an infallible action, but what exactly do you expect? Rome to retract her beatification?”

I address this objection in chapter one. Rome can do two things. It is possible for Rome to retract her beatification. If it is not infallible, why is it impossible? According to you, Rome changed infallible articles of the faith. Why can’t Rome change a non-infallible decision? The other possibility is for Rome to just drop her cause. It has been done for others, it can be done for Mother Teresa.

“To retract the miracle that was attributed to her cause? I'm sure you are more aware than I of the process Rome undertakes in validating these miracles starting with beatifactions.”

I have a whole chapter in my book on the “miracle.” I will be frank, there was no miracle. Rome, and this embarrassing for it is another scandal, violated her own laws to give Mother Teresa the miracle falsely so-called. No miracle, no beatification—we have cause.

“I'm just rather certain that there's nothing in your book that wasn't also brought up by the devil's advocator at her cause for beatification. And even with those questions, the Church still preceded quickly to beatify her. If you don't like some thing's she said, then perhaps she violated her order's mission statement, but that doesnt necessarily make someone unsaint worthy. Neither of us has walked a day in her life in knowing the difficulties she had spiritually or the labors she endured in spite of, but we can feel secure that the church will soon recognize her as a saint.”

I am not going to rewrite my book here to answer all your objections. Your natural desire to believe the hierarchy is commendable, but you faith is misplaced. What part of the following quote do you think they missed?

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

If you want to be a true follower of Mother Teresa, help your unbelieving friends become better followers of whatever faith they hold. Evangelism is an art but this is not the way to go about it. Also, do you see the inherent danger in holding that the above words as the words of a “Saint”?

"There has also been a lot of attacks against John Paul II in things he also supposedly did and allowed during his pontificate, as I would expect there to be much more for people to pick apart about such a long tenured pope. I just hope you don't have any thoughts on making him the object of your next book?”

Interesting comment. I was approached by Catholics who wanted me to write a book on Pope John Paul II. There are no plans at present. Still, I had no plans to write book on Mother Teresa and would have rather left the matter along but Rome’s insanity on her cause forced my hand to write. Pray for both Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, and Rome.

I have one last question:

If a missionary is asked by unbelievers if they had come to their country to convert them, do you believe that it is treason for that missionary to tell them that they had come to convert them to be a better whatever they are? Forget Mother Teresa for a moment, is the following quote Catholic?

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

Dear Reesorville,

I am cannot provide a source that Mother Teresa was not interested in converting non-Christians. If I did, I would be fabricating the source and slandering her. She was interesting in converting non-Christians to her faith, and she believed that faith to be Catholicism. She held many Catholic beliefs; and she held many non-Catholic beliefs, beliefs gravely offensive and injurious to the very heart of Christianity. What would happen if a non-Catholic were to desire to become a “Catholic” because they believed Mother Teresa’s non-Catholic beliefs were teachings of the faith? Would they be converts? No, they would not be converts. I address this point in my book.

Is there a particular quote that I have cited here that you want the source? You can look over my book on amazon.com.

Dear stchadwick,

You said:

“Our world is comprised of a different dynamic today and one has to live out and share their beliefs differently than in times of the past.”

“Even if that was her original reason, she may have realized it just wasnt a very plausible thing for her to be able to do.”

“Her understanding of her mission may have been better understood once she saw the changing dynamic of how one should share ones faith with another because of the pluralistic world we live in.”

“That changing dynamic I alluded to has more to do with having to change how we may be the most successful in getting conversions.”

“One probably wont be as successful preaching, like in centuries past, by going to a foreign land of nonchristians as the apostles did.”

Regarding these quotes, your thinking is incorrect in two areas.

First, I see you adopting the 19th century liberal mentality about missiology. That approach was based on a disbelief of the biblical text and the traditional approach. Those churches that adopted that approach are now banks and bars. You are correct that God does the converting and that is why we do not monkey with the message or the manner in which the message is conveyed. St. Paul said:

“How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things (Rom. 10:14-15)?”

The children of Adam have not changed, and they are in desperate need of salvation.

Second, Mother Teresa did preach. The problem is not that she did not preach but many times what she did preach was heresy and blasphemy. No matter how sincere and correct Mother Teresa was on other issues, when she was asked by unbelievers if she had come to their country to convert them and she told them that she converts them to be a better whatever they are, she was committing treason against the Lord. She said:

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

For a Christian to do such an act is also idolatry. I would hope that all who read that quote of Mother Teresa and call on the name of Christ who would rather die than to ever profess and bless what she said as the truth of God. May the Lord have mercy on her!

You have many other errors in your post but I must comment on your last sentence. You said:

“I believe this is a major factor in why the Church teaches that other faiths may be saved, but it is ultimately still only through the Catholic Church.”

No the Church infallibly teaches the opposite. Rome has spoken:

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441).

There is no salvation outside the Gospel of Christ. That is the Catholic faith taught everywhere, always, and by all.

Dear stchadwick,

You said:

Saints were criticized in their lives especially starting in their beatification processes. But that time for Mother has ended. It comes down to the fact that the Church has spoken and any criticism of Mother now becomes a criticism of the Church. She has much more info and better insight of her life than either one of us. We either follow Her or we don't.

Rome has spoken the case is closed? No!

Rome has spoken when she speaks infallibly. If criticisms come after Rome had canonized Mother Teresa then you may have a point. Beatification is not an infallible act of the Church. Therefore, Rome has not spoken.

I spent four years researching and writing the only book in print that examines Mother Teresa’s words and deeds in light of the Catholic faith, her virtues and vices. I am well qualified to render an opinion about the suitability of canonizing Mother Teresa. Your objections are addressed in the first chapter of my book. I sought council with many priests before writing the book and every priest who has read the book has praised it highly. One former sister of the MCs read the book and said I was very fair to Mother Teresa. The book is more than a book about Mother Teresa. The book serves as a manual for knowing the qualifications for canonization.

Corruptio optimi pessima –Corruption of the best is the worst

So it was with the Pharisees, so it is now.

Jesus said, “Fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Mt. 10:28). Some people are murderers of souls, regardless of if they intend to kill or not. Jesus spoke of some of the hardened Pharisees as such people. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte. And when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves” (Mt. 23:15). As the Pharisees and their like make children of hell, they sincerely persecute the children of heaven. “They will put you out of the synagogues: yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doth a service to God.” Such people, even though they think they know and worship God, do not know him or worship him. “And these things will they do to you; because they have not known the Father nor me” (Jn. 16:2–3).

This quote is taken from p. 221 of my book.

Anyone feel as if for your fidelity you are being driven out of your Church?

Dear stchadwick,

You said:

“So Mark, how realistic is it that Mother Teresa would go to a country with so many Hindus and expect to make them better Catholics?”

Drop the “better” and you will have the idea. Spreading the Gospel is the missionary mandate of the Church (CCC, 849) and certainly something Mother Teresa wanted to do. Mother Teresa said:

“All souls need to be converted” (Mother Teresa: The Case for The Cause, 45).

You said:

“Our world is comprised of a different dynamic today and one has to live out and share their beliefs differently than in times of the past.”

True, today we have more sinners, so we need more preaching of the Gospel.

You said:

“I don't believe Mother's first thoughts in going to India was to convert all those nonbelievers; rather she mainly recognized a call that had more to do with the many poor and miserable souls that were dying in the street completely alone. That is what she was about and has a lot less to do with having a religious agenda.”

Mother Teresa would be very vexed at this comment. Mother Teresa was very explicit:

“I came to India solely with the hope of saving many souls and to gain a Martyr’s palm” (Come Be My Light, 92).

“There are millions who live in Indian cities and villages in ignorance of God and of Christ, in abominable sinfulness. We shall bring them to Christ and Christ to them” (Come Be My Light, 116).

She hated the thought of being called a social worker. Mother Teresa said:

“We are not social workers, though we do social work” (Mother Teresa: The Case for The Cause, 139).

You said:

“Saints of the past were often criticized in their lifetimes for some things they did, so this isnt as unprecedented as you assume.”

True, Saints, or in this case a Blessed, have been criticized. They were criticized for fidelity to the faith. What is important for the Church to discern now is if Mother Teresa deserves the same criticism.

Liberty Clarion,

Thank you for supporting my spine.

Dear ohhappyday,

Did you, perhaps, read the description of the video on the right? Here is the part I think you missed:

“This sermon was given, at the request of the Administrator of Most Precious Blood Church in Hazleton, because he wished me to explain to the people of his Church why what he was doing was completely in line with Vatican II. The administrator now has written of himself that ‘I deeply regret the disturbing effect of his talk upon you.’(Bulliten, Vol. XXI No. 17, April 26, 2009)”

Yes, the administrator made the changes but instead of standing up to his own parish he asked another priest to do his job for him. Then, when the visiting priest did what the administrator requested and the anger of his parishioners transferred to the visiting priest the administrator assumed no responsibility for his actions and beliefs and washed his hands of the visiting priest.

How disgraceful!

“I say you are spineless!”

Thank you for the Catholic charity. To me, your comment is more comical than offensive. People may call me many things but “spineless” is not one of them. If you had any idea of who I am you would have never used that word. I have no problem telling the administrator that he needs to repent and “play the man” instead of being a cowering like St. Peter did with the Judaizers. This conflict is similar to the conflict between Sts. Peter and Paul in Galatians chapter 2. St. Paul was so concerned that the Galatians could loose their salvation by bad influence, he said:

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8-9).

He said to St. Peter:

“But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented: so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews” (Gal. 2:11-14)?

I believe it is the visiting priest who is represents St. Paul and the administrator St. Peter who withdrew and separated himself for fear of his parishioners.

Many Catholics only think in terms of dead orthodoxy. They believe that we should only be concerned if a Catholic professes belief that is opposed to the apostolic tradition. On the contrary, Pope John Paul II said:

“It is useless to play off orthopraxis against orthodoxy: Christianity is inseparably both” (Catechesi Tradendae, 22).

I do not have a problem telling the administrator that he needs to repent and he can easily find me on the web if he wants to talk. Church Tradition is clear. “Public sinners ought to be publicly censured so that others may stand in fear” (Pope Eugene IV). More is a stake than the visiting father’s reputation—which is justification for the rebuke.

“Can. 220 No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses nor to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy.”

The administrator needed to defend the visiting priest and he failed to do so. Now, the administrator needs to publicly apologize and defend the visiting priest. Those telling the visiting priest that he needs to reconcile with an unrepentant priest need to remember what is needed for absolution.

Finally, I did suggest in my original post that all should do the “Catholic thing” for the administrator and “pray for his repentance.”

A homily that will wake you up in the morning better than coffee! I can just see the Joe six-packs in the pew as father refers to “the Spirit of Vatican II” as “Satanic.” The administrator of the parish is like so many clerics. He had his spine removed when he was ordained. Pray for his repentance. As Jesus said, “Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven” (Mt. 10:32-33). As a cleric he has the greater duty to preach, teach, and discipline the sheep.