We will now discuss one of the world’s most publicly adored individuals. That’s right, the wait is over. In this essay we will be talking about none other than Anjeze (Agnes) Bojaxhiu. I can hear the crickets chirping, and that’s because you don’t think you know her.
But you do.
At least, you know of her.
You know Agnes as the Roman Catholic Mother Teresa of Calcutta. The Roman Catholic hierarchy uses aliases (Pope John Paul 2’s real name was Karol Wojtyla, etc.); a habit they share with mafia gangsters (virtually all are Roman Catholics) and Hollywood celebrities (many are Roman Catholics).
To criticize Mother Teresa for anything usually results in the horrified outrage of the news media (which is composed largely of Roman Catholics and is, at least, pro-Roman Catholic from top to bottom), and other “soft-in-the-head” individuals who believe and parrot everything the news media puts out. This makes no difference to us one way or the other, as we are interested in the truth no matter who gets outraged by it. For all the hype about, “The people deserve to know!” and “A free press is essential to a free society where the truth can out!” and “That’s how it was today in the world” (all news media clichés), we know that if the news media is the source of the information, that information will be what the media thinks you should know only, skewed and censored in favor of those they wish to promote, put out by fascists seeking to suppress anyone who tells a story different than theirs, and it will be “how it WASN’T today,” rather than how it WAS. So, we will take the news media with all their pretentious “moral outrage” and summarily pitch them into dumpster number 13 and forget about them.
Our approach to the information about Mother Teresa will be factual, rather than dogmatic, which means we will deal with information you cannot and will not obtain from CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, ABC, XYZ, SOS, TMI, and etc. Upon analyzing these facts, we will allow the reader to judge this woman in light of the scriptures. We report, you decide.
First, some vital statistics. Agnes Bojaxhiu (1910-1997) was born in Albanian Kosovo (belonging to present-day Macedonia, just across the Mediterranean from the heel of Italy’s “boot”) to a Roman Catholic family. She was influenced (we will refrain from postulating on the nature of this “influence”) by a Roman Catholic priest to devote herself to serving the Catholic church by the time she was 12 years old, and went on to become a nun. In 1950, Agnes founded the Missionaries of Charity, a Roman Catholic religious congregation which had over 4,500 “sisters.” The organization was active in 133 countries in 2012. They manage homes for people dying of AIDS, leprosy and tuberculosis; soup kitchens; dispensaries and mobile clinics; children's- and family-counseling programs; orphanages, and schools. The nuns who worked for Agnes took vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience, and also professed a fourth vow: to give "wholehearted free service to the poorest of the poor.” Agnes received a number of honors, including the 1962 Ramon Magsaysay Peace Prize and the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize.
She was “canonized” (recognized by the Roman Catholic church as a saint) by Jorge Bergoglio (alias Pope Francis) in Vatican City on September 4, 2016, and there’s a feast day on the anniversary of her death.
The media would call Agnes a “controversial” personality. She was admired by many for her charitable work; she was praised and criticized for her opposition to abortion; and she was criticized for poor conditions in her houses for the dying.
Mother Teresa’s Crusade Against Abortion
According to “Saint Teresa,” the greatest destroyer of peace in the world today is not murder; it’s not genocide; it’s not war; it’s not even “the love of money” (I Tim. 6:10) as the Bible points out (but then again what Roman Catholic was ever interested in the Bible’s sentiments?)—no; in fact, the primary enemy of tranquility in the world today is abortion. Agnes stated in her acceptance speech for the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize, “And I feel one thing I want to share with you all, the greatest destroyer of peace today is the cry of the innocent unborn child.”
Isn’t that sweet? Simple-minded Christians might generally identify with Mother Teresa’s stand against abortion; however upon examination, the situation is not so simple.
The Roman Catholic Church has always pretended to take a moral stand against abortion, but their reasons are, as with their positions on every other social or moral issue, based on nothing more than their own self-interests and political expediency. God and the Bible are simply tools they use to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. The reason the Catholic church is anti-abortion is because the primary way by which their church grows in number is the same way Islam grows in number—by being fruitful and multiplying. If you’re born into a Catholic home, you’re a Catholic, and as far as “the Church” (how the media refers to the Catholic church while discriminating against all other churches) is concerned, the more births, the more “baptisms,” the more church members. It’s as simple as that. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church cares not whether these children are poverty-stricken and starving in third world countries (read that “CATHOLIC countries”—as in all of South and Central America, and Mexico); only that they are poverty-stricken, starving, Roman Catholic Church members. Do you suppose that the bunch who murdered 50 million Bible believers over a thousand year period (500-1500 AD)—slamming them into “iron maidens,” pulling their fingernails and toenails out with hot pinchers, stretching them on racks till all their bones came out of joint and all the ligaments were torn to shreds, invading houses, ravaging women and tossing the BABIES of “heretics” (anyone who trusted in Jesus Christ and the Bible instead of “his hellishness” the pope) up into the air and catching them on the ends of their swords and spears—is concerned about “moral issues”?
Don’t try to be funny.
As it turns out, the Roman Catholic Church found the perfect agent, to be the perfect actress, with the perfect media image to spread their political propaganda when they “discovered” Mother Teresa. Indeed, it was shortly after a British documentary (Something Beautiful For God, by Malcolm Muggeridge, 1969) that the Catholic church began to honor her publicly (ah, yes; the old “Mother of Harlots”—Rev. 17—can see a “client” coming from a mile down the street). The public immediately warmed to her, so Pope Paul VI awarded her the Pope John XXIII Peace Prize in 1971. Rome never passes up an opportunity to get “good press” in the eyes of the Western world—that’s where all the power is at the moment, and incidentally, it’s the part of the world where they have the least influence. Enter Mother Teresa, stage LEFT.
Agnes deserves no praise for crusading against abortion. Abortion is not a religious issue for Rome; it’s a POLITICAL one. It has to do with nothing less than world domination. The more Catholics are born, the quicker the Roman Catholic Church achieves a majority and “brings in the kingdom”—a totalitarian, fascist, Roman Catholic dictatorship with a man who wears a robe and a crown, has people kissing his rings and his feet, and carries a scepter running the show. That’s why “Mother” shot her mouth off about abortion every chance she got. It was her JOB; and no one could miss it unless they were watching the news.
As she continued to assume her idealistic role for “the church,” Mother Teresa identified herself with the poorest of the poor in the world. Quoting again her acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979, she said “…I personally am most unworthy, and I having avowed poverty to be able to understand the poor, I choose the poverty of our people. But I am grateful and I am very happy to receive [the award] in the name of the hungry, of the naked, of the homeless, of the crippled, of the blind, of the leprous, of all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared, thrown away of the society, people who have become a burden to the society, and are ashamed by everybody. In their name I accept the award.”
Impressive speech, but what about her actions? For example, if she has “chosen the poverty of her people” to identify herself with, what is she doing rubbing shoulders with Jean-Claude Duvalier (“Papa Doc’s” boy) and his wife Michele (formerly Bennett), the infamously corrupt and oppressive dictator and “first lady” of Haiti in the early 1980’s? Let’s meet these “poor folk” Agnes hung out with.
Due to her marriage to the “President,” Mrs. Duvalier's family amassed wealth during the latter part of Jean‑Claude’s dictatorship. By the end of his fifteen‑year rule, Duvalier and his wife had become famous for their corruption. Haiti’s National Palace became the scene of opulent costume parties, where the young President once appeared dressed as a Turkish sultan to dole out TEN-THOUSAND DOLLAR JEWELS as door prizes. (Sound like Mother Teresa’s crowd to you? Certainly not if one judged her by her speeches or her media persona, but then we’ve already stated how trustworthy the Catholic news media is, haven’t we?) In response to widening opposition to 28 years of Duvalier rule, on February 7, 1986, the Duvaliers fled the rioting country in an American plane accompanied by 19 other people. The governments of Greece, Spain, Switzerland, Gabon and Morocco all refused the Duvalier family's requests for asylum. France agreed to give the Duvaliers temporary entry but also denied them asylum. Soon after their arrival in France, their home was raided as part of an investigation into the pillaging of Haiti’s treasury. Michele was found trying to flush documents down a toilet. Her papers documented recent spending including US$168,780 for Givenchy clothing, US$ 270,200 for Boucheron jewelry and US$ 9,752 for two children's horse saddles at Hermès. In 1987, a French civil court dismissed Haiti’s lawsuit against the Duvaliers, which sought to have the Duvaliers held responsible to repay money to Haiti. In 1990, Jean‑Claude Duvalier filed for divorce from Michele in the Dominican Republic, accusing her of immoral acts. Michele, who was living with another man in Cannes at the time, contested the decision, flying to the Dominican Republic to obtain a reversal before her husband prevailed in a third court. She was awarded alimony and child support.
So “what to our wandering eye should appear,” but a picture of Mother Teresa and Michele Duvalier on a trip made to Haiti by the former in the early 1980’s. In the picture, (easily located online for reference) Mother Teresa gazes up at Michele with seeming respect and admiration, their hands clasped together in mutual affection. Mother Teresa said of Michele Duvalier, “Madame President is someone who feels, who knows, who wishes to demonstrate her love not only with words, but also with concrete and tangible actions.”
Well, that’s obvious.
But that isn’t the extent of things. The catalogue of Mother Teresa’s dubious associates include, among others, Hillary Clinton, Washington D.C. mayor Marion Barry (arguably the most corrupt, degenerate mayor to ever preside over an American city), and other presidents, prime ministers, and political, national, and even cult leaders. Observe Agnes happily accepting a check for $10,000 from John-Roger Hinkins, a cult leader with a messiah complex, who decided he was greater than Jesus Christ after he had a “vision” following a kidney operation. Of course, according to Agnes and her church, John-Roger was damned to hell as an incredible heretic and infidel…but $10,000 bucks is $10,000 bucks after all. A lot of money for someone so “poor.”
As we leisurely flip through the photo album, we find a shot of Mother Teresa at a speaking engagement with Hillary Clinton and Marion Barry in Washington D.C. (My, didn’t this “poorest of the poor” saint get around? How many poor folks do you know that could get an audience with the Clintons and fly around on private jets to keep speaking engagements, hmm? I thought she had made a vow to identify with the poor; did I miss something?). This Hillary Clinton connection deserves some background in our discussion on the real Mother Teresa; after all, can we not judge one’s character by their friends and enemies? David subjected himself to this judgment (Psalm 139:19-24); I’m sure Mother Teresa would not object...her being a saint, and all.
The photo of Agnes, Hillary, and Marion was taken in June of 1995, and was occasioned by Hillary’s visit to the Indian subcontinent in March of that year. Molly Moore of the Washington Post reported on Hillary’s sacrificial and charitable visit to the “poor and needy” for whom her heart bleeds—
When the Clinton motorcade whisked through the Pakistani countryside yesterday, a long fence of brightly colored fabric shielded it from a sprawling, smoldering garbage dump where children combed through trash and several poor families had built huts from scraps of cardboard, rags and plastic…In another instance, Pakistani officials, having heard rumors that the First Lady might take a hike into the scenic Margalla Hills overlooking the capital of Islamabad, rushed out and paved a ten-mile stretch of road to a village in the hills. She never took the hike (the Secret Service vetoed the proposal) but villagers got a paved road they’d been requesting for decades.
That’s Hillary and her bunch. It is the informed opinion of this author that there exists not on this earth a more vile bunch of perverted, morally and spiritually bereft, egomaniacal, would-be despots than Bill and Hillary Clinton (for example, see the works by Edward Klein among many other sources); but isn’t that interesting company to keep for such a pure and holy “saint” of the poor, oppressed, and dying? Strange bedfellows, wouldn’t you say? It seems MORAL bankruptcy captured Mother Teresa’s affections much more easily than actual poverty.
Observe Mother as she hops a plane to Bhopal, India, when the Union Carbide Plant in operation in that city had an accident due to corporate negligence, and spilled toxic chemicals over a large portion of the population. Up shows Mother at the airport, immediately crying “Forgive, Forgive” when the victims’ poor families begged her for help. What was Agnes doing there? How did she know there was anything to forgive? And why would she take the side of the rich corporation against the poor, victimized populace she was avowed to serve? You don’t think the higher-ups at Union Carbide could be fellow Roman Catholics, do you? You don’t suppose they could be wealthy donors to “the church,” do you? Could it be the Papa over in Rome dispatched Mother Teresa for some damage control? Of course not. Mother Teresa is no politician.
Here’s Mother again in Madrid, Spain (a Roman Catholic Church State), lending her support to the Roman Catholic politicians who were trying to resist anti-Catholic legislation which was being debated in one of the first votes of Spain’s post-Franco era. Of course, Mother is above politics; it’s abortion she’s speaking out against. But we’ve “heard that tune before, it’s from an old, familiar score…”
See Agnes in London with Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister of England. The two had a conclave on the eve of a decisive parliamentary vote about some pro-Catholic legislation (abortion again) being put forward by one of the MP’s, David Alton, whose campaign Mother Teresa was there to boost. She succeeded. But Mother Teresa is “not political.”
Then there was Mother’s visit to the White House in May, 1985. President Reagan awarded her with the Presidential Medal of Freedom on this occasion, in hopes of gaining support from Roman Catholics over a debacle in Central America (made up of solidly Roman Catholic countries). Mother wound up praising Reagan for his policies in Ethiopia at the time, as well. Rome was grappling for control of that area (Eritrea) by courting the ruling junta, and Reagan took the side of the Catholics in the matter, giving his support to General Mariam. Mariam was a tyrant who used the weapon of starvation against Eritrea, and against other domestic and regional dissent in other parts of the country. Incidentally, that didn’t stop Mother from associating with him. The end justifies the means. But Mother Teresa isn’t “political.”
And time fails us to tell of Agnes’ visits to Nicaragua (a Roman Catholic Church state), Guatemala (Roman Catholic), and even her own home country of Albania, coincidentally during times of political upheaval; but there’s “nothing to see here” politically, of course. It’s just Mother spreading “the gospel.”
What most fail to understand is, “spreading the gospel” to a post-millennial Roman Catholic is equivalent to an attempt at the total takeover of the world’s visible governments. Politics and religion are ONE AND THE SAME to a post-millennial “kingdom builder.”
The Death Cult
One would think the standard of care at Mother Teresa’s homes for the sick and dying would be first-rate, based on the “love and compassion” for these folks both Agnes and the sisters who work for her profess to have (not to mention the considerable amounts of money at their disposal). However, the truth is that caring physically for the poverty-stricken, suffering, and diseased who frequent her homes is secondary to the true purpose of Mother’s endeavor.
Take for example the visit of Dr. Robin Fox to the Mother Teresa operation in Calcutta in 1994. As editor of The Lancet, one of the world’s foremost medical journals, Dr. Fox was professionally interested in, and qualified to pronounce upon, the standards of care. The opening paragraphs of his report in the journal’s September 17, 1994 issue make it clear that he paid his visit with every expectation of being favorably impressed:
There are doctors who call in from time to time, but usually the sisters and volunteers (some of whom have medical knowledge) make decisions as best they can. I saw a young man who had been admitted in poor shape with high fever, and the drugs prescribed had been tetracycline and paracetamol. Later a visiting doctor diagnosed probable malaria and substituted chloroquine. Could not someone have looked at a blood film? Investigations, I was told, were seldom permissible. How about simple algorithms that might help the sisters and volunteers distinguish the curable from the incurable? Again no. Such systematic approaches are alien to the ethos of the home. Mother Teresa prefers providence to planning; her rules are designed to prevent any drift toward materialism: the sisters must remain on equal terms with the poor…Finally, how competent are the sisters at managing pain? On a short visit, I could not judge the power of their spiritual approach, but I was disturbed to learn that the formulary includes no strong analgesics. Along with the neglect of diagnosis, the lack of analgesia [pain medication] marks Mother Teresa’s approach as clearly separate from the hospice movement. I know which I prefer.
It should be emphasized that the conditions described by Fox were not of some amateur, impoverished clinic in a disaster zone. Mother Teresa had been working in Calcutta for 45 years at the time of the visit, and for 30 of those years, she had been favored with immense quantities of money and material. Her “Home for the Dying,” which was the facility visited by Fox, was by no means straitened financially. It is as he described it because that is how Mother wishes it to be. The neglect of what is commonly understood as proper medicine or care is no accident. It’s the essence of the endeavor—the same essence as is captured in the cheerful sign on the wall of Mother Teresa’s morgue: “I am going to heaven today.”
According to other former volunteers at Mother Teresa’s Calcutta operation, Dr. Fox may have paid his visit on an unusually good day, or may have been unusually well looked after. Mary Loudon, who has written extensively about the lives of nuns and religious women, had this to say about the Home for the Dying:
My initial impression was of all the photographs and footage I’ve ever seen of Belsen and places like that, because all the patients had shaved heads. No chairs anywhere, there were just these stretcher beds. They’re like First World War stretcher beds. There’s no garden, no yard even. No nothing. And I thought what is this? This is two rooms with fifty to sixty men in one, fifty to sixty women in another. Their dying. They’re not being given a great deal of medical care. They’re not being given painkillers really beyond aspirin and, if you’re lucky, some Brufen or something, for the sort of pain that goes with terminal cancer and the things they were dying of…
They didn’t have enough drips. The needles they re-used over, and over, and over, and you would see some of the nuns rinsing needles under the cold water tap. And I asked one of them why she was doing it, and she said: “Well to clean it.” And I said, “Yes, but why are you not sterilizing it; why are you not boiling water and sterilizing your needles?” She said: “There’s no point. There’s no time.
The first day I was there when I’d finished working in the women’s ward I went and waited on the edge of the men’s ward for my boyfriend, who was looking after a boy of fifteen who was dying, and an American doctor told me she had been trying to treat this boy. And that he had a really relatively simple kidney complaint that had simply got worse and worse and worse because he hadn’t had antibiotics. And he actually needed an operation. I don’t recall what the problem was, but she did tell me. And she was so angry, but also very resigned which so many people become in that situation. And she said, “Well, they won’t take him to hospital.” And I said: “Why? All you have to do is get a cab. Take him to the nearest hospital, demand that he has treatment. Get him an operation.” She said, “They don’t do it. They won’t do it. If they do it for me, they do it for everybody.” And I thought, “But this kid is fifteen…”
Bear in mind that Mother Teresa’s global income (in the hundreds of millions at this time—$$$) was more than enough to outfit several first-class clinics in Bengal. The decision not to do so, but to run instead such a haphazard, unsanitary, and generally dismal institution is a deliberate one. The point is not the honest relief of suffering, but the promulgation of a cult which is based on the glorification of death, suffering, and subjection. Think that’s extreme? In a filmed interview, Agnes herself gave a vivid picture illustrating this truth. She described someone in the last agonies of cancer and suffering unbearable pain. With a smile as though she was relating a sweet, sentimental memory, Mother Teresa told the camera what she told this terminal patient: “You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you.” Having a seared conscience, Agnes failed to see the morbid nature of this story as she gave the sufferer’s reply: “Then please tell him to stop kissing me.”
That’s the Marion cult. That’s Roman Catholicism in PRACTICE. Forget whatever they profess—this is what is actually going on.
No doubt there are many who suffered and died at Mother Teresa’s “temple of doom” who would have preferred actual charity to philosophical and psychological, pseudo-spiritual bull-shooting. No, the real medical care was reserved for Mother Agnes herself, who, it should be noted, checked into some of the finest and costliest hospitals and clinics in the West during her bouts with heart trouble and old age.
Many volunteers at Mother Teresa’s hostels and clinics from Calcutta to San Francisco have similar stories to relate illustrating the atmosphere at the homes. Susan Shields worked for nine and a half years as a member of Mother Teresa’s order, living the daily discipline of a “Missionary of Charity” in New York City, Rome, and San Francisco. She left the order for the same reason she joined it—love for humanity—and wrote of her experiences. If her memoir reads like the testimony of a former cult member, that’s because it is. She relates that, within the order, total obedience to the dictates of a single woman is enforced at every level. Questioning of authority is not an option.
I was able to keep my complaining conscience quiet because we were taught that the Holy Spirit was guiding Mother. To doubt her was a sign that we were lacking in trust and, even worse, guilty of the sin of pride. I shelved my objections and hoped that one day I would understand the many things that seemed to be contradictions
One summer the sisters in the Rome novitiate were given a great quantity of tomatoes. They couldn’t give the tomatoes away because all their neighbors had grown their own. The Superior decided that the sisters would can the tomatoes and eat them in the winter. When Mother came to visit and saw the canned tomatoes, she was very displeased. Missionaries of Charity do not store things but must rely only on God’s providence.
In San Francisco the sisters were given use of a three-story convent with many large rooms, long hallways, two staircases, and an immense basement…The sisters lost no time in disposing of the unwanted furnishings. They removed benches and tossed couches and chairs out of the windows and onto the street below. There were to be no creature comforts at all.
Ms. Shields became uncomfortable with the deceit, pretense, and hypocrisy of Mother Teresa’s pharisaical operation:
The flood of donations was considered to be a sign of God’s approval of Mother Teresa’s congregation. We were told that we received more gifts than other religious congregations because God was pleased with Mother, and because the Missionaries of Charity were the sisters who were faithful to the true spirit of religious life. Our bank account was already the size of a great fortune and increased with every postal service delivery. Around $50 million had collected in one bank account in the Bronx…
Those of us who worked in the office regularly understood that we were not to speak about our work. The donations rolled in, and were deposited in the bank, but they had no affect on our ascetic lives or on the lives of the poor we were trying to help.
It is impossible to say with certainty what became of Mother Teresa’s hordes of money, however this does shine a light on the true nature and purpose of Mother Teresa’s order, and to what end the donations are accepted in the first place. Susan Shields again:
For Mother, it was the spiritual well-being of the poor that mattered most. (My, what a sweet, gracious, and spiritually-minded saint! Now watch this pious faker in all her “glory”…) In the homes for the dying, Mother taught the sisters how to SECRETLY BAPTIZE THOSE WHO WERE DYING. Sisters were to ask each person in danger of death if he wanted a “ticket to heaven.” An affirmative reply was to mean a consent to baptism. The sister was then to pretend she was just cooling the person’s forehead with a wet cloth, while in fact she was baptizing him, saying quietly the necessary words. Secrecy was important, so that it would not come to be known that Mother Teresa’s sisters were baptizing Hindus and Moslems.
And there it lies, like a rotten egg—you can’t beat it, and it sure stinks. Mother Teresa was the worshipped head of her own sub-cult, within the cult of Rome, and was engaged in nothing more than the spread of Rome’s political agenda by, among other things discussed, secretly proselytizing and converting unknowing members of other religions, and taking advantage of their suffering and death as a means to do it. And all for the numbers she could ascribe to the membership of the Roman Catholic Church. This, all the while engorging the Vatican coffers with other people’s money. “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done!”
Now, the reader should keep in mind, Roman Catholicism has a dual nature. It should never be forgotten that, although the Pope parades around as a religious leader, he is also the head of the VATICAN STATE; he has a palace, officers, armed guards, weapons, territory, his own coinage and postage stamps, a throne, and a crown. He also has, as other countries, agents at work around the world serving the interests of the Vatican. As a matter of fact, that is why the founding fathers of the United States originally would not allow Roman Catholics in positions of civil authority, elected or unelected. To be a member of the Roman Catholic Church means you’ve sworn allegiance to a FOREIGN POLITICAL POWER. But who considers that, these days? Nobody. The Roman Catholic news media won’t report on it, that’s for sure. At any rate, just as the Pope pretends to be a religious leader as he goes about his business dealing strictly with political leaders around the world (did you ever notice that?), his agents around the world pretend to be religious leaders but are simply operatives serving Rome’s political agenda.
Her “Mother Teresa” persona was that of a religious servant of the poor; but the real Agnes was an intelligence asset, financial front, and propaganda agent for the Vatican, operating in 133 countries; and that allegation is based on documented evidence of her actions, speeches, associates, and whereabouts, and not on biased opinion.
Having briefly discussed these matters, we will now relate the incident in Agnes’ life that we find testifies best to the striking contrast between the news media “Mother Teresa,” and Agnes Bojaxhiu, Vatican Agent extraordinaire. It also testifies to how “Christian” (meaning a “follower of Jesus Christ”) this Catholic “saint” was.
The following information (as much of the material in this article) is from a book by Christopher Hitchens subtitled Mother Teresa In Theory And In Practice. The book can be found at any Chapters or Barnes and Noble. Hitchens was a journalist—writing in America for Vanity Fair and The Atlantic, among others—and he has accumulated some interesting documentation on Agnes. It has to do with one of the most infamous crimes ever committed in America. We quote from pages 69-76 of his work:
[Charles] Keating is now serving a ten year sentence for his part in the Savings and Loan scandal—one of the greatest frauds in American history. In the early 1980’s, during the booming, deregulated years of Reagan’s first term, Keating, among other operators, mounted a sustained and criminal assault on the deposits of America’s small investors. His methods were those of the false prospectus and the political bribe. (Washington vernacular still contains the expression “The Keating Five,” in honor of the five United States senators who did him favors while receiving vast campaign donations in the form of other peoples’ money.) Keating had political ambitions as well as financial ones, and as a conservative Catholic fundamentalist had served Richard Nixon…
At the height of his success as a thief, Keating made donations (not out of his own pocket, of course) to Mother Teresa in the sum of one and a quarter million dollars He also granted her the use of his private jet. In return, Mother Teresa allowed Keating to make use of her prestige on several important occasions and gave him a personalized crucifix which he took everywhere with him.
In 1992, after a series of political and financial crises and the most expensive bailout operation in the history of the American taxpayer, Keating was finally brought to trial. He appeared before the Superior Court in Los Angeles (his “Lincoln Savings and Loan” had been a largely Californian operation) where he was heard by the later-notorious Judge Lance Ito [he was the judge who presided over the OJ Simpson trial]. The trial could have only one outcome: the maximum sentence allowable under California law.
During the course of the trial, Mother Teresa wrote to the court seeking clemency for Mr. Keating. She gave no explanation of her original involvement with the defendant and offered no direct testimony mitigating his looting of the thrift industry. [The letter appears here, in its original form.]
One is struck immediately by…the astonishing artlessness of the letter, both as composed and as presented. One might think it a missive from and innocent old woman who knows nothing of cupidity and scandal, and who naively wishes to intercede for reasons of rather woolly compassion. The transcript of Mother Teresa’s highly ideological Nobel Prize speech, for example, does not read like this. It is professionally written and presented. And many of her other public interventions demonstrate a much sharper sense of the real world, even when Mother Teresa is choosing to speak on matters, such as sexuality and reproduction, where she must necessarily admit to being disqualified by inexperience.
The suspicion that there might be something faux naïf [pretendedly naive] about the appeal occurred also to Mr. Paul Turley who, in his capacity as Deputy District Attorney for Los Angeles, was Mr. Keating’s co-prosecutor. On his own initiative, and as a private citizen, he wrote and dispatched a careful reply. I reproduce it below, for the first time:
Dear Mother Teresa,
I am a Deputy District Attorney in Los Angeles County and one of the persons who worked on the prosecution of your benefactor, Charles H. Keating, Jr. I read your letter to Judge Ito, written on behalf of Mr. Keating, which includes your admission that you know nothing about Mr. Keating’s business or the criminal charges presented to Judge Ito. I am writing to you to provide a brief explanation of the crimes of which Mr. Keating has been convicted, to give you an understanding of the source of the money that Mr. Keating gave to you, and to suggest that you perform the moral and ethical act of returning the money to its rightful owners.
Mr. Keating was convicted of defrauding 17 individuals of more than $900,000. These 17 persons were representative of 17,000 individuals from whom Mr. Keating stole $252,000,000. [That’s two hundred and fifty two MILLION dollars, people.] Mr. Keating’s specific acts of fraud were that he was the source of a series of fraudulent representations made to persons who bought bonds from his company and he also was the repository of crucial information which he chose to withhold from bond purchasers, thereby luring his victims into believing they were making a safe, low-risk investment. In truth and in fact, their money was being used to fund Mr. Keating’s exorbitant and extravagant lifestyle.
The victims of Mr. Keating’s fraud come from a wide spectrum of society. Some were wealthy, and well-educated. Most were people of modest means and unfamiliar with high finance. One was, indeed, a poor carpenter who did not speak English and had his life savings stolen by Mr. Keating’s fraud.
The biblical slogan of your organization is “As long as you did it to one of these My least brethren, you did it to Me.” The “least” of the brethren are now among those whom Mr. Keating fleeced without flinching. As you well know, divine forgiveness is available to all, but forgiveness must be preceded by admission of sin. Not only has Mr. Keating failed to admit his sins and his crimes, he persists in self-righteously blaming others for his own misdeeds. Your experience is, admirably, with the poor. My experience has been with the “con” man and the perpetrator of the fraud. It is not uncommon for the “con” men to be generous with family, friends and charities. Perhaps they believe that their generosity will purchase love, respect or forgiveness. However, the time when the purchase of “indulgences” was an acceptable method of seeking forgiveness died with the Reformation. No church, no charity, no organization should allow itself to be used as salve for the conscience of the criminal. We all are grateful that forgiveness is available but we all, also, must perform our duty. That includes the Judge and the Jury. I remind myself of the biblical admonition of the Prophet Micah: “O man, what is good and what does the Lord require of you? To do justice, love mercy and walk humbly.”
We are urged to love mercy, but we must do justice.
You urge Judge Ito to look into his heart—as he sentences Charles Keating—and do what Jesus would do. I submit the same challenge to you. 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.
Paul W. Turley
Three years later [now eight years later], Mr. Turley has received no reply to his letter. Nor can anybody account for the missing money: saints, it seems, are immune to audit.
Not “saints,” Chris, old boy; Roman Catholic politicians, feigning themselves to be humanitarians while they act as agents of a foreign state, taking bribes for favors, and undermining and usurping authority from the governments under which they live, and any other with which they can gain influence.
If the Bible is right (and there’s no question in our own mind), Mother Teresa was no saint. As a matter of fact, she was never anybody’s “mother” (as far as we know, that is) and her name wasn’t “Teresa”. Isn’t that something? Imagine your life being such a sham that even the name and title you go by are fraudulent. In the Bible, a “saint” is anyone who has 1) trusted the atonement made by Jesus Christ when He laid down His life in sacrifice for sinners (Col. 1:14), and 2) received the righteousness of Jesus Christ (Rom. 4:5) and the eternal life it brings as a free gift (Rom. 6:23). The New Testament refers to LIVING, BREATHING, believers as “saints” (Rom. 15:25; Eph. 1:1; etc.). Any born-again believer is a saint, because when God looks at his soul, he sees nothing but the holy and righteous life of His Son imputed to the believer (Rom. 4:5; II Cor. 5:21). God cannot see the sins of the born-again believer, because they’re gone. They were imputed to Jesus Christ, Who was subsequently executed for those sins in our place.
It might surprise the reader to learn that, in contrast to Biblical saints, Mother Teresa confessed to having no assurance of God’s presence in her life at all, or even of His existence, for the latter FIFTY YEARS OF HER LIFE. Listen to this poor, benighted, lost pagan describe her spiritual condition in her own words, written to a confidant:
Jesus has a very special love for you…as for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great, that I look and do not see,—listen and do not hear—the tongue moves [in prayer] but does not speak…I want you to pray for me…”
Indeed, Agnes admitted in letters to her confessors over a period of 66 years that for the last nearly half-century of her life she felt no presence of God whatsoever—“neither in her heart, nor in the eucharist.” In more than 40 communications, many of which have never been published (Mother Teresa wanted them destroyed, but they were preserved), she sorrows for the “dryness,” “darkness,” “loneliness,” and “torture” she is undergoing. She compares the experience to hell (sorry, Agnes; that comes later) and at one point says it has driven her to doubt the existence of heaven and even of God. She was aware of the difference between her inner thoughts and her public image. “The smile,” she writes, is a “mask” or “a cloak that covers everything.” “I spoke as if my very heart was in love with God-tender personal love,” she remarks to an adviser. “If you were [there], you would have said, ‘What hypocrisy.’”
You realize, while knowing this, the Roman Catholic hierarchy canonized this woman “Saint Teresa.”
Let’s just tell it like it is. “Mother” Agnes was nothing more than an agent of the man of sin (the pope—see the epistle dedicatory to the King James Bible). This poor, wretched, pitiful sinner lived and died alone in this world, without hope and without God, and will hit the judgment clothed in nothing but the filthy rags of her own self-righteousness. She’s in hell right now if the Bible’s right, awaiting the White Throne Judgment (Rev. 20:11-15).
As far as we know, Agnes died trusting in her Roman Catholic rituals, her membership in the Roman Catholic Church, and her persona as a globally recognized do-gooder to get her through the judgment; and according to the word of God (Eph. 2:8, 9), no sinner will make it to Heaven based on those merits, no matter what they’ve done, who they may be, who they’ve pretended to help, or what the news media says about them.
“And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God” (Luke 16:15).