I posted this here because to me it was a shining example of "political incorrectness". It is politically incorrect to check the closets (for skeletons) of those whom our press has decided to portray as saints.
I haven't done any research. I can't tell you if the press version or this book's version are closer to being true. For me, the most fascinating aspect of this blurb was not the result, but the process. Question everything. Presuppose nothing. The book may indeed be full of complete lies. It may conversely tell truths which are unpopular because they negate something universally held up as an example of mankind's capacity for...beauty. Who wants to hear it isn't so? Someone (I forget who) once said "Beauty is truth, truth beauty". I find this to be a crippling simplification of real life.
I will say this. I am no champion of religion. I am also not its enemy (that is to say, I won't wear the label of a religiophobe). The Catholic Church has proven in the past its capacity for worldly cynicism overlaid by piety. It was a pretty standard MO for the last 1500 years. I also believe that people don't "just become" leaders in world movements without a lot of smarts AND a lot of ambition. I won't say it is so, but I cannot dismiss the idea that Mother Teresa had a sophisticated understanding of her political leverage.
I guess what I'm hearing in your post is a frustration with those who would say the church is wrong. The way you're expressing this, however, is in a pre-emptive derogation of those opponents of organized Christianity. Look at the terms you choose. (Nasty piece, spout the worship of a nebula, fanatical left wing press, Dan Rather.) By implication, those who have a beef with the Church are, well, un-American or something. Am I included in this across-the-board value judgment? If so, I don't have a lot of options for polite discussion. Help me out here. |
