I haven’t bothered to read about the alleged shortcomings of Mother Teresa, beyond those described by Ilana. None of this shocks or surprises me. Mother Teresa devoted her life to trying to live up to an utterly false ideal, namely that sacrifice is the ultimate virtue and that suffering can make one noble. People devoted to false ideals tend to live as hypocrites, because their ideals kill them.

“Yet you include your picture in the article – I suppose so we can all see how ‘beautiful’ you are on the outside.”

It’s refreshing to see we are able to discuss the column based on its merits, or lack thereof, instead of deferring to ad hominem attacks.

To say that the use of the term sadist was disgusting or vulgar is simply histrionics-to say the least. (In fact, the tearing of cloth comes to mind.) Did I dwell on its use when I noticed it was used describing Mother Teresa? Yes. Did I consider that it was used in the wrong context? Yes. But, perhaps the word’s acerbic connotation was the writer’s wish when describing well-documented concerns about the austere practices of Missionaries of Charity. It seems unlikely that the writer believes that Mother Teresa suffered from a psychological disorder that caused her some sort of gratification at the suffering of others.

The more likely alternative would be to impugn the religious and progressive beatification-canonization of Mother Teresa, amongst others. The sixth chapter of the Book of Matthew aptly warns against what became, well-documented, concerns that Mother Teresa began to epitomize the cause celebre:

“Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others.”

“And when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. ”

That these verses could be used to more affably scrutinize Mother Teresa would draw the apparent satirical intent of the writer into lessons in sensitivity
instea
d of carping about the de-construction of historical figures under the imprimatur of political correctness.

In other words, calm yourself. Not every word that comes forth from a writer’s mouth is an attack on Rome.

In that sense, I disagree with the Objectivists who fail to distinguish between altruism of the heart (tzedakah) and compulsory altruism where person A steals the money from person B to give a small portion of the booty to person C.

But having put in my 2 cents of praise for the Mother Teresa’s, I will also state that a freedom fighter like Andrei Sakharov can to more for the poor by establishing liberty than a Teresa. And inventor/entrepreneurs such as Thomas Edison, Steven Jobs, and Jonas Salk do vastly even more for the poor by the natural creation of wealth (via human ingenuity) than the propagation of faith.

I wholly concur with your assessment that the founders were infinitely more virtuous than the vast majority of today’s Americans. But this cantankerous, seventy-one year old retired USN CPO submits: had the founders insisted that the bedrock principle contained in the Declaration (“…all men are created equal”) be constitutionally codified and slavery absolutely prohibited, chances are deconstruction of the founders’ greatness would never pass muster.

I very much appreciate your contributions in the fight for liberty. God’s infinite blessings to you and yours . . .

Vince Wallgren
La Mesa, California

Our Foundinf Fathers were honorable men first and foremost.

How many of our current staff in Congress could even understand what that would be?

Jim Dunlap
Sovereign Citizen of State of Nevada

They were also well educated. The accomplishments of Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin across several professional fields are quite remarkable in their own right. These three men are mentioned here as examples. The founders were all remarkable men in different ways.

The fact that the founders understood the nature of man and understood that liberty and freedom would work best for imperfect man is remarkable in and of itself. Freedom and liberty do not require perfection of men or women. However, it does require a commitment to the social contract and a “moral populace”.

“Perfection” of socialism in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Cambodia required the murder of millions and millions of their citizens all in the name of the perfecting the communist man or woman, in theory. In truth it had nothing to do with perfecting anything but maintaining political power.

I honestly believe that one of the keys to the founders success was the fact they understood the nature of man. In the end competition in a free market with minimal rules and regulations results in better products and better companies. If a company is corrupt and underhanded the truth will eventually come to the forefront and the market will punish these deeds.

Clearly the founders understood governance, economics, and the intrinsic value of liberty and freedom.

Of the three persons you named in that paragraph, you only assailed two of them: Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, whose reputation was worldwide and whom many regard a Saint, and Anderson Cooper, an openly homosexual man whose “journalism” is bent to the far left and who is increasingly hostile to Christianity. From my perspective, the only thing that Christopher Hitchens “nailed” in his book is to prove, ad-nauseum, that he’s a foaming at the mouth, anti-Catholic bigot. For those intersted in knowing what drivel is actually contained in Hitchen’s screed, without having to soil themselves intellectually, can go to the following link: http://www.catholicleague.org/rer.php?topic=Book+Reviews&id=27

Shame on you!