Can you imagine any writer not harboring a death wish referring to Islam’s Holy Prophet Muhammad as a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud who was anything but holy and not worthy of respect by Muslims–all of which would be true?

When the bitter, balmy, bi-sexual Brit Christopher Hitchens excoriated Mother Theresa on in 2003 as “a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud,” he was participating in the all-too-common popular indoor sport of Catholic/Christian/conservative-bashing/trashing frequently played by liberal leftists.  Hitchens had to have known he could get away with that bashing and trashing since he was only attacking a revered Catholic icon and not the Muslim  prophet who spent most of his life warring, pillaging, and murdering and who married an 8 year old girl, Aisha.

There’s something about Christian decency and religious fervor that bugs the hell out of the hypocritical lib-left subset of humanity.  They feel free to rip someone like Mother Teresa–after she died– but they wouldn’t dare criticize the pedophile Muhammad lest they spend the rest of their lives anonymously skulking somewhere out of fear death threats in the form of a fatwā issued by a maniacal ayatollah.

Hitchens was ostensibly incensed that Pope John Paul II and the Vatican’s Holy See had jumped the gun by fast-tracking Mother Theresa’s beatification and canonization as a saint in the Roman Catholic Church and allegedly falsifying a miracle due to her intercession, a Church requisite for sainthood.

What Hitchens was also doing on Slate, a website established by lefty weasel and professed atheist Michael Kinsley, was using that allegation as a platform to tear into everything the RCC stands for and to demean the  enormous good it has accomplished over two thousand years.

  Like every institution created by man, the Church is flawed, a reality greatly exacerbated beginning in 1962 by the affable but naive Pope John XXIII’s Second Vatican Council which instituted a series of reforms that allowed significantly more freedom for priests and nuns to do their independent “thing.”  Cardinal Giovanni Montini, later Pope Paul VI, reputedly commented privately on John that ”This holy old boy doesn’t realise what a hornet’s nest he’s stirring up”.

And Pope John XXIII, despite his intent, stirred up more than a few hornets’ nests and those hornets are still stinging.

To her great credit, Mother Teresa, Albanian-born Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu, now recognized as Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, never really subscribed to Pope John’s reforms.

Instead, she continued to minister to her Missionaries of Charity congregation encompassing some 4,500 nuns in 133 countries, all of whom are required to take vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience as well as adhering to a unique fourth vow, to give “wholehearted and free service to the poorest of the poor.”

A baptized, non-practicing, non-believing, technical Catholic, Celeste Owen-Jones commented on a recent study by Canadian scholars regarding Mother Teresa that claimed she was “anything but a saint.”

In an obvious quest to publish rather than perish, the Canadian academics alleged Mother Teresa was a “product of hype” who “housed the poor and sick in shoddy conditions, despite her access to a fortune” and “that the majority of [her] patients were not cared for properly and many were left to die.”

As Ms. Owen-Jones said, I do ”not admire and defend Mother Teresa because I think she is a saint, but because I believe she is an incredible human being” and she lauds Mother Teresa’s ”selfless work among the sick and the dying in [Calcutta] one of the world’s worst slums.”

Owen-Jones completed her defense of Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu by writing, ”To all the Mother Teresa haters: if you don’t like her, that’s your right and I respect it. But please, do not waste all this time writing studies or articles on her that have no other value than being controversial . . . And if Mother Teresa did such a bad job helping others, why not save that time spent criticizing her to instead try to make a difference in this world?”

There are two major weaknesses in Ms. Owens-Jones wish.  First of all, Christopher Hitchens has gone on to his bi-sexual reward in the Great Beyond and thus is unable to retract his calumny and he was never interested in trying to help others as Mother Teresa did.  Secondly, any remaining Mother Teresa detractors would surely reject any rapprochement with her memory until she confesses from the grave that she was wrong in how she spent her life– which is highly unlikely.

  Mother Teresa never presumed to be a saint; most saintly people would never make that presumption.

What Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu, Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, may have presumed was that she could make a positive difference in our sorry planet, and she succeeded.  What Chistopher Hitchens presumed was that he could destroy Mother Teresa’s legacy, and he failed abominably.

May both their souls rest in peace.