Mother Teresa lived the life that many in the higher hierarchy of the Catholic Church should embrace. She lived humbly and simply and she spend her life working to help others unlike many “Christian” leaders who support themselves with wealth and worldly goods. One can hate her for her efforts but she was never holier than thou.
I think what you’re saying is that :Thud: she lived what she preached :Thud:.
… an extreme fundamentalist view of Roman Catholicism …
Not sure if the phrase is of Hitchens’ or your usage, but do you know what a ridiculous oxymoron it is? Catholics aren’t Fundamentalists (who coined and defined the term, BTW), and historically there has been (and yet is in some circles) considerable animosity between Fundamentalists and Catholics. "Fundamentalist! has been remolded into an epithet used to circumvent discussion of certain types of issues. More specifically, it’s an epithet used for people who walk their talk, who practice what they preach, who live what they say they believe.
… which repeated many of the accusations … claimed … also claims … There are accusations … There are also accusations …
People who would normally think rationally fail to examine claims about Mother Teresa because she is considered holy.
I could claim that Mother Teresa was an ambisexual vampire (and I’m sure there are at least a few people who hate her enough that they would believe it without asking for a definition of “ambiseual”). IOW, anyone could claim anything that ranges from pure malevolent fantasy to half-truth to total truth. But the New Testament (drawing from the Old Testament standard of evidence for capital crime accusations, BTW) sets a standard by which claims against Christians and Christian leaders should be judged within the church:
2 Corinthians 13:1 - Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
1 Timothy 5:19 - Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
Implicit in those scriptures is that the burden of proof is on the accuser: the accuser must establish guilt; the accused is not under obligation to prove innocence except as a responce to evidence.
From what I’ve seen of some (not all) atheists the credulity problem is with the folk shoveling unsubstantiated mud. They seem blinded by their hatred and/or even consciously selectively mixing facts, half-facts and falsehoods. But as regards Mother Teresa, let the accusers present evidence. For example:
… Hitchens said Mother Teresa is widely and falsely seen as selflessly devoted to serving mankind …
Well and good! Let the accusers produce the pix of Mother Teresa in her mansion with gold-plated faucets … or of Mother Teresa shopping for shoes and handbags in NYC or Paris. Or evidence less spectacular, yet clear and unequivocal. Let the accusers produce the clear unequivocal evidence that proves the accusation. I’m neither a Catholic nor a Fundamentalist, but I’m pretty sure that this is the standard of proof Hitchens criticized as a “fail(ure) to examine claims about Mother Teresa”.