The same people who think it’s okay to lie about Obamacare because American voters are stupid believe that more abortion increases quality of life (for whom?), and now these fellow travelers have turned on the last bastion of compassion: Mother Teresa.
This is what happens when you unmoor morals from truths. With no “infinite reference point,” Mother Teresa becomes an evil to skeptics who believe their own self-consuming views of philosophy elevate pleasure above sacrifice to the the point where they believe in nothing at all.
G. K. Chesterton wrote that “Liberalism has been degraded into liberality”:
But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. . . .
As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. . . .
The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.
Slate recently republished a screed by the late Christopher Hitchens (which I won’t link here) against Mother Teresa, calling her beatification by Pope Francis “the abject surrender, on the part of the church, to the forces of showbiz, superstition, and populism.”
Salon followed suit a few days ago, writing, “Her mission was not so much to alleviate suffering but to ensure it happened within a framework of religious belief. Indeed, by her own admission she was motivated by a desire to fulfill her own religious convictions rather than altruistic concern for the world’s poor.”
The Left has its own definition of altruism, apparently, because Webster defines it as an “unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others.”
This is where the Left is today: abortion is a right to kill without regard to the life being taken, and that’s considered “unselfish.” A woman who spent her entire life in prayer, genuine concern, and daily sharing of others suffering is considered to be a fraud because she didn’t do enough to bring modern medical care to the 517 missions in 133 countries the Missionaries of Charity operated.
The modern liberal values death more than compassion.