The caller also questioned their knowledge because of their age but the same could be said of his and the stubborness he obviously has in not wanting to acknowledge anything not written explicitly in the bible the way he'd like it to be (Eucharist). What makes him think that because of the directive of doing this in memory of Me could somehow take away from what was said about it being His body? The verb used in those verses is not the classical Greek verb used of human eating, but that of animal eating: munch, gnaw. 1 Cor. 11 would then have to be explained away because if by partaking of the Eucharist unworthily we are guilty of murdering the body of Christ, then these would be unjust penalties if the Eucharist was only intended symbolically.

The Catholic Church allows abortion ONLY if a mother will ACTUALLY DIE if she gives birth

kfarley,

The Church never allows for abortion under any circumstance. Perhaps you are referring to the principle of double effect or secondary effect, but that is still not a case where the Church allows for direct purposeful abortions. I'm unaware of any circumstance where a woman would be completely unable to give birth that only having an abortion would solve? Any issue she would have would simply be treated and if through her treatment the child dies, that isn't an abortion. In any situation like this though, if giving birth can kill her then how would not an abortion be at least of equal or greater harm to the medical malady she's already facing?

CathPresbyter,

If you knew anything about me then you would know that thinking I value the world's opinion would have to be a gross mischaracterization. I of course recognize that salvation can only be found in Jesus, but when one offers that message to someone and they do not accept it, continuing to do so can often cause the opposite effect. In my personal experience, many times people can be turned off completely from being constantly bombarded with the message of Christ once they have already refused. I believe my part is done and the rest is up to the Holy Spirit for them to become open. I wont just wipe the dust from my sandals as scripture recounts as they are my friends and family and I dont believe that is what Christ wants of me. I believe He would prefer I be an example to these people. It may have said that in scripture, but that was a time that the faith was first being spread. Most know of Christ today and people have free will to except or reject. God doesnt take it away so neither will I. Its not about me telling these people that their actions are good being noncatholics, its about showing respect for the person. I dont expect the pope to have a meeting with Jewish and Muslim leaders and berate them for following the wrong faith. Its about respect at a basic level.

The things that Mother is being criticized for doing are things that she did or said during her lifetime. If these things were so unbecoming of, not just a saint, but even a Catholic, why didn't her superiors or even the pope himself correct her of her blantant mistakes? Why now when she's no longer here to answer for herself or to possible give her an opportunity to explain the context of things she said? This may have been a major reason she never intended a lot of her struggles to ever become common knowledge? Its the place solely for the Church, which I think has already taken place.

You asked why didnt she truly love them and try to bring them to Jesus, I would say that I believe she did but even in the aspect of hers that are being questioned, she may have known that doing so directly would make her not acceptable among the people, where she would then either be killed or removed. By staying and respecting the people, she may have opened the possibilities of having someone there to exemplify to these people who this Christ was that she followed. My contention is there can possibly be varied ways of bringing Christ to people which I think exists because of the current faith situation in the world today. No, it isnt like the times of past Saints, but I dont believe this necessarily disqualifies her. I simply believe that the Church exhausted their investigation prior to her beatification and if any of this was a concern, things would have been stymied from the outset. This leads me to believe that there is nothing new which the Church wasnt already aware of or brought up by the devil's advocate at her beatification cause.

Can you show me something which explicitly states that other faiths cannot be saved?

I saw a clip of a nun (forgot her name) who runs schools in India for many of the children who live on the streets. And in the video she remarked that many of the children in her school are often expert thieves by the age of 9. She then said that this is something she can't take away from them as its their only source for survival. I found it weird coming from a nun of the faith, but with this being in direct contradiction to the Commandments, does this at all open up any subjective area of how one saint may have dealt with a situation compared to another?

I see the point Mark and you have made in wanting to come to the truth of Mother's life. I think its a thought provoking topic, I just don't think any of these questions will ultimately merit anything to stop her canonization. I am curious though - if the Church declares her a saint, will each of you still believe it as an incorrect pronouncement or will you believe it to be a case that she must have since completed her purgatory?

As for how I preach to my friends, I've shared Christ with them, but they have rejected Him. There could be many reason they choose to do so, religious bias, family, etc. For me, I share and its up to them with the help of the Holy Spirit to accept Him. You really have to have a feel for the people you are dealing with to know how far to "push" so to speak. If I'm just going to berate them about Christ continuously then it would defeat the purpose of befriending them in light of their choice to reject. Chances are, I will be the only person of Christ they will ever affiliate with, so one never knows, because of the changing dynamic of faith today, what the best method of preaching always is to each individual situation.

Cath,

But you are also downplaying the conversions Mother did bring about by living the way that she did. Perhaps she wasnt St Francis or St Thomas, but she, you or I arent intended to be them. We are called to be saints in our own right. Examples of past saints and popes continuously are brought up and there is nothing necessarily wrong about how they lived, but I also contend comparing people of today to times of the past also doesnt make someone wrong. This Mother Teresa has pervaded through the secular like no else and has been a person who saw Jesus in everyone she met, without feeling the need to first preach with words like an apologist. I would suspect that finding the dying in the streets isnt a primary occurence missionaries often find in their everyday work. I believe that if she had preached the exact way some wanted her to, no way could she have been as successful as she ended up being. That is a larger testament of who she was and something not solely accomplished on her own but from above. Perhaps that is what her calling was and not that of a martyr, no matter what her initial testimony may have been to the contrary. Deciphering ones call within a call often takes time. She lived her calling the way she understood it. From where I sit, I think she was very successful in doing so just in looking at her life, instead of just taking individual quotes of hers and implying that this somehow undoes who she was. This world has much more pressing issues today than disproving Mother Teresa's sainthood, but people are more than welcomed to try, but I think its futile, as I know it is only a matter of time before it comes to fruition.

Sure, there were many popes of the early centuries that would have also uttered similarly to Pope Eugene - Innocent III and Boniface VIII for example. But that was largely my point is saying we live in a different world today with the ushering in and monumental spread of noncatholic christianity. Would those same popes have ever agreed that the Holy Spirit could ever have existed in other christian churches apart from Rome? Of course not, but that is what She believes today. Not because sin has changed, but because the subjectivity of sin and how it relates to mankind has.

I understand that beatifications arent readily accepted as an infallible action, but what exactly do you expect? Rome to retract her beatification? To retract the miracle that was attributed to her cause? I'm sure you are more aware than I of the process Rome undertakes in validating these miracles starting with beatifactions. I did not intend to downplay your knowledge of this subject, as I'm sure you have done a lot of investigating. I'm just rather certain that there's nothing in your book that wasn't also brought up by the devil's advocator at her cause for beatification. And even with those questions, the Church still preceded quickly to beatify her. If you don't like some thing's she said, then perhaps she violated her order's mission statement, but that doesnt necessarily make someone unsaint worthy. Neither of us has walked a day in her life in knowing the difficulties she had spiritually or the labors she endured in spite of, but we can feel secure that the church will soon recognize her as a saint.

In learning of Mother's struggles throughout her life, she has become an example to me more than before, as I previously thought everything just came easy to her. Now that I know all she did in her life with such immense struggles, she now seems more real to me as someone I can relate to.

In those I would like to show Christ to, I find limited opportunities to convert them. If I did such a thing in a blatant fashion, I doubt I would have any friends of other faiths. They know what I believe and often comment on my Christ-like example, but in my case, and I assert possibly in Mother's, that may have been what she faced in such a country? Same with apologetics, I wouldnt get anywhere if all I did was go around preaching in a similar fashion than what would have been mandated by the Church in the 13th century. Times have changed and there are other methods that I find work better. Every faith system out there today believes they are the truth, so how would that work out if we all just preached away without showing respect for what people are first? Without that respect initially, I've found I don't get very far with them, even friendship-wise, let alone having an opportunity to convert them to Christ's true Church.

There has also been a lot of attacks against John Paul II in things he also supposedly did and allowed during his pontificate, as I would expect there to be much more for people to pick apart about such a long tenured pope. I just hope you don't have any thoughts on making him the object of your next book?