Mother Theresa: Another Catholic Fraud?

[JoltinJoe]

You are so delusional. You have been pwned over and over again. Now you are citing Hitchens, a friggin' idiot with zero credibility.

You could have avoided all this if you paid attention in college. Now all you have is internet research.

What are you getting at Joe? Are you saying Mother Teresa didn't say this things because D put up a source you don't agree with?

There's a Supreme Court case by the name of Masson v. New Yorker Magazine.

Masson sued for defamation, specifically identifying certain quotations attributed to him which did not accurately reflect this thinking. W

There were many issues in the case. However, with respect to certain challenged quotes, the defendant claimed it could not be charged with defamation because each of the quotations were literally correct -- that the plainitff had spoken each word attributed to him.

The Supreme Court held that the defendant could be liable for defamation because, even though the quotes were word-for-word accurate, they were presented in a distorted, misleading way, specifically through their use out of intended context. Justice Kennedy wrote: "conversely, an exact quotation out of context can distort meaning, although the speaker did use each reported word."

I read Hitchens' immature diatribe when it was published in 1996. Get this: it was called "The Missionary Position." What a clever guy this Hitchens is.

Apart from the fact that it was poorly written (a Hitchens' trademark), he constantly twisted words out of context to fabricate an unintended meaning. Numerous books reviews called him out for his deceptions and the book suffered a much deserved early death.

It is still a favorite on the lunatic fringe websites that D1B frequents, though.

[AZGrizFan]

All this Mother Teresa bashing and she STILL did more to deserve the Nobel Peace Price than the Obamanation we have holding the trophy right now.

[D1B]

What are you getting at Joe? Are you saying Mother Teresa didn't say this things because D put up a source you don't agree with?

There's a Supreme Court case by the name of Masson v. New Yorker Magazine.

Masson sued for defamation, specifically identifying certain quotations attributed to him which did not accurately reflect this thinking. W

There were many issues in the case. However, with respect to certain challenged quotes, the defendant claimed it could not be charged with defamation because each of the quotations were literally correct -- that the plainitff had spoken each word attributed to him.

The Supreme Court held that the defendant could be liable for defamation because, even though the quotes were word-for-word accurate, they were presented in a distorted, misleading way, specifically through their use out of intended context. Justice Kennedy wrote: "conversely, an exact quotation out of context can distort meaning, although the speaker did use each reported word."

I read Hitchens' immature diatribe when it was published in 1996. Get this: it was called "The Missionary Position." What a clever guy this Hitchens is.

Apart from the fact that it was poorly written (a Hitchens' trademark), he constantly twisted words out of context to fabricate an unintended meaning. Numerous books reviews called him out for his deceptions and the book suffered a much deserved early death.

It is still a favorite on the lunatic fringe websites that D1B frequents, though.

Still nothing

[D1B]

I'll put Hitchen up against your sorry ass any day. You're getting your ass kicked right now by a biology major and a high school kid.

You are so delusional. You have been pwned over and over again. Now you are citing Hitchens, a friggin' idiot with zero credibility.

You could have avoided all this if you paid attention in college. Now all you have is internet research.

Fun watching you squirm! The personal attacks clinch it, for me.

[D1B]

All this Mother Teresa bashing and she STILL did more to deserve the Nobel Peace Price than the Obamanation we have holding the trophy right now.

Get out of here.

[D1B]

What are you getting at Joe? Are you saying Mother Teresa didn't say this things because D put up a source you don't agree with?

There's a Supreme Court case by the name of Masson v. New Yorker Magazine.

Masson sued for defamation, specifically identifying certain quotations attributed to him which did not accurately reflect this thinking. W

There were many issues in the case. However, with respect to certain challenged quotes, the defendant claimed it could not be charged with defamation because each of the quotations were literally correct -- that the plainitff had spoken each word attributed to him.

The Supreme Court held that the defendant could be liable for defamation because, even though the quotes were word-for-word accurate, they were presented in a distorted, misleading way, specifically through their use out of intended context. Justice Kennedy wrote: "conversely, an exact quotation out of context can distort meaning, although the speaker did use each reported word."

I read Hitchens' immature diatribe when it was published in 1996. Get this: it was called "The Missionary Position." What a clever guy this Hitchens is.

Apart from the fact that it was poorly written (a Hitchens' trademark), he constantly twisted words out of context to fabricate an unintended meaning. Numerous books reviews called him out for his deceptions and the book suffered a much deserved early death.

It is still a favorite on the lunatic fringe websites that D1B frequents, though.

Hitchens is a best selling author. Missionary position has received favorable reiviews like this one from the New York Times:

THE MISSIONARY POSITION Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice. By Christopher Hitchens. Verso, $12.95.

Like all good pamphlets, "The Missionary Position," by Christopher Hitchens, is very short, zealously overwritten, and rails wildly in defense of an almost nonsensical proposition: that Mother Teresa of Calcutta is actually not a saint but an evil and selfish old woman. And Mr. Hitchens, a columnist at Vanity Fair and The Nation, is rather convincing. His main beef is that Teresa -- real name Agnes Bojaxhiu -- has consorted with despots and white-collar criminals and gained millions of tax-free dollars, while the residents of her famous Calcutta clinic are still forced to confront their mortality with inadequate care. Ultimately, he argues, Mother Teresa is less interested in helping the poor than in using them as an indefatigable source of wretchedness on which to fuel the expansion of her fundamentalist Roman Catholic beliefs. Mr. Hitchens argues his case with consummate style. The only real problem with "The Missionary Position" is its awful title. BRUNO MADDOX

A few others quips and sources:

Reviews

“Is nothing sacred? Well, no ... a witty, informative study in applied iconoclasm.” — In These Times

“Anyone with ambivalent feelings about the influence of Catholic dogma (especially concerning sex and procreation); about the media's manufacture of images; or about what one can, should or shouldn't do for someone less fortunate, should read this book.” — San Francisco Bay Guardian

“Hitchens argues his case with consummate style.“— New York Times

“A dirty job but someone had to do it. By the end of this elegantly written, brilliantly argued piece of polemic, it is not looking good for Mother Teresa.“ — Sunday Times (London)

Also from the book:

The book includes the reproduction of a letter written by Mother Teresa on behalf of Keating to Judge Lance Ito who was presiding over Keating's trial for defrauding his investors of billions of dollars. The letter urged the judge to consider the fact that Keating had donated generously ($1.25 million) to the Missionaries of Charity and suggested that Judge Ito "look into [his] heart" and "do what Jesus would do."

Hitchens also includes the contents of a letter written to Mother Teresa by the man prosecuting the case against Keating, Deputy District Attorney for Los Angeles Paul Turley. In the letter, Mr. Turley pointed out to Mother Teresa that Keating was on trial for stealing more than $250 million from over 17,000 investors in his business. In addition, Turley expresses his opinion that "[n]o church, no charity, no organization should allow itself to be used as a salve for the conscience of the criminal" and suggests:

"Ask yourself what Jesus would do if he were given the fruits of a crime; what Jesus would do if he were in possession of money that had been stolen; what Jesus would do if he were being exploited by a thief to ease his conscience? I submit that Jesus would promptly and unhesitatingly return the stolen property to its rightful owners. You should do the same. You have been given money by Mr. Keating that he has been convicted of stealing by fraud. Do not permit him the 'indulgence' he desires. Do not keep the money. Return it to those who worked for it and earned it! If you contact me I will put you in direct contact with the rightful owners of the property now in your possession."

After the conclusion of the letter, Hitchens notes: "Mr. Turley has received no reply to his letter. Nor can anyone account for the missing money: saints, it seems, are immune to audit."

*Funny Joe, why hasn't anyone sued Hitchens over these lies?

More detail:

The Sunday Times says: "A dirty job but someone had to do it. By the end of this elegantly written, brilliantly argued piece of polemic, it is not looking good for Mother Teresa."[1][who?]

The San Francisco Bay Guardian says: "Anyone with ambivalent feelings about the influence of Catholic dogma (especially concerning sex and procreation); about the media's manufacture of images; or about what one can, should or shouldn't do for someone less fortunate, should read this book."[1][who?]

In 1996, The New York Times published a favourable review by Bruno Maddox in which he says: "Mr. Hitchens, a columnist at Vanity Fair and The Nation, is rather convincing." and: "Hitchens argues his case with consummate style".[2]

Also in 1996, a hostile review of the book was penned by William A. Donohue, president of The Catholic League, who comments: "If this sounds like nonsense, well, it is.".[3]

Personal accolades:

In September 2005, Hitchens was named as one of the "Top 100 Public Intellectuals"[95] by Foreign Policy and Britain's Prospect magazine. An online poll was held which ranked the 100 intellectuals, but the magazine noted that Hitchens' (#5), Chomsky's (#1), and Abdolkarim Soroush's (#15) rankings were partly due to supporters publicising the vote.[96]

In 2007 Hitchens's work for Vanity Fair won him the National Magazine Award in the category "Columns and Commentary".[97] He was a finalist once more in the same category in 2008 for some of his columns in Slate, but lost out to Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone.[98]

Hitchens is an Honorary Associate of the National Secular Society,[99] and in received the 1991 Lannan Literary Award for Nonfiction.[100]

[D1B]

Missionary Position Amazon.com Review

Amazon.com Review
What's next--The Girl Scouts: The Untold Story? How could anybody write a debunking book about Mother Teresa and her Missionaries of Charity order? Well, in this little cruise missile of a book, Hitchens quickly establishes that the idea is not without point. After all, what is Mother Teresa doing hanging out with a dictator's wife in Haiti and accepting over a million dollars from Charles Keating? The most riveting material in the book is contained in two letters: one from Mother Teresa to Judge Lance Ito--then weighing what sentence to dole out to the convicted Keating--which cited all the work Keating has done "to help the poor," and another from a Los Angeles deputy D.A., Paul Turley, back to Mother Teresa that eloquently stated that rather than working to reduce Keating's sentence, she should return the money he gave her to its rightful owners, the defrauded bond-holders. (Significantly, Mother Teresa never replied.) And why do former missionary workers and visiting doctors consistently observe that the order's medical practices seem so inadequate, especially given all the money that comes in? (Hitchens acidly observes that on the other hand, Mother Teresa herself always manages to receive world-class medical care.) Hitchens's answer is that Mother Teresa is first and foremost interested not in providing medical treatment, but in furthering Catholic doctrine and--quite literally--becoming a saint.

[D1B]

God Bless Hitchens - The freaking Catholics called him in as "Devils Advocate" in her Sainthood bullshit examination. Yet another glimpse into the hollywood celeb machine that is the Catholic Church!

Wikipedia

Following Mother Teresa's death in 1997, the Holy See began the process of beatification, the third step towards possible canonization. This process requires the documentation of a miracle performed from the intercession of Mother Teresa. In 2002, the Vatican recognized as a miracle the healing of a tumor in the abdomen of an Indian woman, Monica Besra, following the application of a locket containing Mother Teresa's picture. Monica Besra said that a beam of light emanated from the picture, curing the cancerous tumor. Critics including some of Besra's medical staff and, initially, Besra's husband insisted that conventional medical treatment eradicated the tumor.[85] Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, who told the New York Times he had treated Besra, said that the cyst was not cancer at all, but a cyst caused by tuberculosis. He insisted, "It was not a miracle…. She took medicines for nine months to one year." [86]

An opposing perspective of the claim is that Monica's medical records contain sonograms, prescriptions, and physicians' notes that could conceivably prove whether the cure was a miracle or not. Monica has claimed Sister Betta of the Missionaries of Charity is holding them. The publication has received a "no comments" statement from Sister Betta. The officials at the Balurghat Hospital where Monica was seeking medical treatment are claiming that they are being pressured by the Catholic order to declare the cure as a miracle .[87]

Christopher Hitchens was the only witness called by the Vatican to give evidence against Mother Teresa's beatification and canonization process, as the Vatican had abolished the traditional "devil's advocate" role, which fulfilled a similar purpose.[88] Hitchens has argued that "her intention was not to help people", and he alleged that she lied to donors about the use of their contributions. “It was by talking to her that I discovered, and she assured me, that she wasn't working to alleviate poverty,” says Hitchens. “She was working to expand the number of Catholics. She said, ‘I'm not a social worker. I don't do it for this reason. I do it for Christ . I do it for the church. ’"[89] In the process of examining Teresa's suitability for beatification and canonization, the Roman Curia (the Vatican) pored over a great deal of documentation of published and unpublished criticisms of her life and work. Vatican officials say Hitchens' allegations have been investigated by the agency charged with such matters, the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, and they found no obstacle to Mother Teresa's beatification. Due to the attacks she has received, some Catholic writers have called her a sign of contradiction.[90] The beatification of Mother Teresa took place on October 19, 2003, thereby bestowing on her the title "Blessed".[91] A second miracle is required for her to proceed to canonization.

Stay tuned, this second miracle should be a good one.

[JoltinJoe]

Hitchens is idiot and a drunk. He scores high in on-line polls, however, because other idiots and drunks spend virtually all their time on the internet.

Although this is my favorite Hitchens' moment. Drunk, as usual, he pisses all over Bill Maher and his audience -- while defending George W. Bush.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECI4QK_mXA

[D1B]

Hitchens is idiot and a drunk. He scores high in on-line polls, however, because other idiots and drunks spend virtually all their time on the internet.

Although this is my favorite Hitchens' moment. Drunk, as usual, he pisses all over Bill Maher and his audience -- while defending George W. Bush.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECI4QK_mXA

Thanks Joe for that one! Sorry, I love the guy.

The fact that he showed up at the popes office and tried to fuck over Ma T is priceless. God bless him!!

[kalm]

Hitchens is idiot and a drunk. He scores high in on-line polls, however, because other idiots and drunks spend virtually all their time on the internet.

Although this is my favorite Hitchens' moment. Drunk, as usual, he pisses all over Bill Maher and his audience -- while defending George W. Bush.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECI4QK_mXA

He is very entertaining.

I can understand how you disagree with Hitchens, but to call him an idiot is just stupid.

BTW, why on earth would you ever watch Bill Maher.

[SunCoastBlueHen]

I love these "watch people bang their heads against a wall" threads. Always entertaining. Repetitive and redundant, but always entertaining.

[JoltinJoe]

Hitchens is idiot and a drunk. He scores high in on-line polls, however, because other idiots and drunks spend virtually all their time on the internet.

Although this is my favorite Hitchens' moment. Drunk, as usual, he pisses all over Bill Maher and his audience -- while defending George W. Bush.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECI4QK_mXA

He is very entertaining.

I can understand how you disagree with Hitchens, but to call him an idiot is just stupid.

BTW, why on earth would you ever watch Bill Maher.

No, he is an idiot. Not in the low IQ sense. More in a social maturity way. For every person he convinces, he offends five others. And he doesn't have to do that. Here's an example of what I mean.

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/hit ... ed_part_i/

[kalm]

He is very entertaining.

I can understand how you disagree with Hitchens, but to call him an idiot is just stupid.

BTW, why on earth would you ever watch Bill Maher.

No, he is an idiot. Not in the low IQ sense. More in a social maturity way. For every person he convinces, he offends five others. And he doesn't have to do that. Here's an example of what I mean.

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/hit ... ed_part_i/

Agreed, just didn't know which form of idiot you were referring too.

[D1B]

He is very entertaining.

I can understand how you disagree with Hitchens, but to call him an idiot is just stupid.

BTW, why on earth would you ever watch Bill Maher.

No, he is an idiot. Not in the low IQ sense. More in a social maturity way. For every person he convinces, he offends five others. And he doesn't have to do that. Here's an example of what I mean.

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/hit ... ed_part_i/

Joe, thanks for the clarification, however I'm gonna call bullshit on this backpedal. You absolutely meant to convey a "low IQ sense" in your intitial comment on the thread. That's how you argue and thats what lawyers do - create doubt.

It was only when you were called on it did you further explain.

His behavior has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Verdict: D1B (again)

[CID1990]

I'd hit it.

Who are we talking about again?

[AZGrizFan]

All this Mother Teresa bashing and she STILL did more to deserve the Nobel Peace Price than the Obamanation we have holding the trophy right now.

Get out of here.

Truth hurts, don't it D.

[D1B]

Get out of here.

Truth hurts, don't it D.

Are you fucking serious? Look who your talking to. I started a thread a month or so ago stating I had genital warts. Do you really think I give a fuck, about anything?

[OSBF]

The quotes are not accurate, correct.

So, it is your sworn testimony today, before the court of cs.com, that those exact words, in that exact order, did not come out of her mouth?

[Appaholic]

You believe anything you read on the internet. If God ran a website, you would be a believer.

http://godswebsite.com/

http://www.vatican.va/

[JoltinJoe]

The quotes are not accurate, correct.

So, it is your sworn testimony today, before the court of cs.com, that those exact words, in that exact order, did not come out of her mouth?

Now I'm being quoted out-of-context too.

[OSBF]

So, it is your sworn testimony today, before the court of cs.com, that those exact words, in that exact order, did not come out of her mouth?

Now I'm being quoted out-of-context too.

So, are you agreeing that the words are accurate or not?

[JoltinJoe]

Now I'm being quoted out-of-context too.

So, are you agreeing that the words are accurate or not?

Why don't you read what I wrote.

[OSBF]

So, are you agreeing that the words are accurate or not?

Why don't you read what I wrote.

Trying to get a straight answer out of you is a tougher job than Starr had with Clinton.

But then I understand, when you don't give direct answers, you don't have to really commit to anything one way or the other.

[JoltinJoe]

Why don't you read what I wrote.

Trying to get a straight answer out of you is a tougher job than Starr had with Clinton.

But then I understand, when you don't give direct answers, you don't have to really commit to anything one way or the other.

You must have a reading comprehension problem. What I wrote was clear and easily understood. Do you just play dumb?