Nelson Jones

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief

Mother Teresa and the Paedophile

Did the "Saint of Calcutta" intervene to protect one of the most notorious paedophile priests of rec

By Nelson Jones Published 12 January 2012 16:09

She was one of the world's most beloved and revered religious figures, a Nobel Peace Prize winner who remains, in the public imagination, the tiny, saintly nun whose life devoted to the poor of Calcutta was a model of Christian renunciation. She had her critics, prominent among them the late Christopher Hitchens, who drew attention to her extreme Catholic traditionalism and her occasional cosying-up to dictators in search of funds for her Missionaries of Charity. But nothing stopped her elevation, a mere six years after her death in 1997, to the status of "Blessed". Her full canonisation looks to be just a matter of time.

Now, though, it looks as though she might be dragged posthumously into the ongoing scandal of priestly sex abuse. Evidence presented in the somewhat unlikely forum of SF Magazine sheds new and potentially damaging light on her close association with Father Donald McGuire, one of the most notorious clerical paedophiles of recent years. In 1994, it appears, Mother Teresa had urged McGuire's reinstatement to the ministry despite clear evidence of his abusive behaviour.

McGuire was a high-flying Jesuit, an inspirational preacher whose conservative views matched her own. His association with Mother Teresa dated from 1981, when he was introduced to her by another leading Jesuit, John Hardon, an adviser to Cardinal Ratzinger who is also said to be considered saint material. McGuire went on to become a confessor and spiritual director to Mother Teresa's religious order. Her successor Sister Nirmala described him in a letter submitted on his behalf to the court as "was one of the very few priests to whom ...[Mother Teresa] entrusted the spiritual care of the Missionaries of Charity."

Yet all the while, he was known (or at least strongly suspected) by senior figures in the Roman Catholic Church to be a serial abuser of young boys in his care. When he was finally brought to trial in 2006, evidence was presented of abuse going back over three decades - most of which had ignored or brushed aside by his superiors. Finally, in 2009 he was sentenced to 25 years in prison following a second conviction for child rape. The Society of Jesus is still fighting legal moves by his victims to obtain compensation.

In 1993, McGuire was temporarily suspended after being accused of inappropriate behaviour with a 16 year old boy and sent on a course of psychiatric treatment. This might have ended his ministry had not his powerful supporters intervened. Hardon seems to have been convinced of his innocence of the more serious allegations (though he accepted that McGuire's admitted conduct -- such as sharing pornography and showers with the boy -- had been "highly imprudent") and reassured him that his work with Mother Teresa's order could continue.

Hitherto there has been no suggestion that Mother Teresa herself knew of the suspicions about McGuire. But a letter in her name -- and very probably written by her -- has now emerged. In it, she acknowledges the "grave" nature of the child-abuse scandal and stresses "how careful we must be to guard the purity and reputation of that priesthood". The letter goes on to assert Mother Teresa's own "confidence and trust in Fr. McGuire" and states that she wishes to see "his vital ministry resume as soon as possible." And indeed his ministry -- and abuse of children -- resumed soon afterwards.

Mother Teresa's influence, of course, was considerable if not in itself decisive. Patrick Wall, a lawyer and former Benedictine monk who has represented many victims of priestly abuse, is quoted as saying that "We're talking about extremely powerful people who could have gotten Father McGuire off the streets in 1994... I'm thinking of all those kids who could have been saved."

The letter perhaps reveals little more than naivety on Mother Teresa's part: she had been persuaded by Hardon, who had himself been duped by the plausible and manipulative Fr McGuire, that he deserved a second chance. But it also demonstrates how lightly serious allegations of child abuse were still being treated by the Catholic authorities as recently as the mid 1990s, especially when the alleged abuser was prominent and theologically sound. Teresa herself, to judge by her words, seems to have been much less concerned about the need to protect children from paedophile clergy than with preserving the "purity and reputation" of the church and the priesthood. Scarcely the stuff of which saints are (or should be) made.

Tags: Catholic Church

More from Nelson Jones

View the discussion thread.

26 comments

Fri, 2012-01-20 22:55 — clinesteronbeademungen (not verified)

Well, Mr Lindsay,all I can say after looking at your blog, is that you seem to be seriously confused about what it is to be left-wing.

Fri, 2012-01-13 14:50 — jankaas (not verified)

"Read my second link"

nice dodge, the quote i questioned, correction, ridiculed, was from your 1st link. try agin...

you also say;

"It is very high time that the Church stopped being bullied by pederasts and pimps, who only disapprove of sex between men and boys when Catholic priests do it."

so you think that when a priest rapes children he is merely having "sex"? jeezus, i pity your wife.

for a fact though i will keep pointing out that the Catholic church still haven't even begun to get their house in order with regards the institutionalised rape of children, and covering then this up. but you think this is 'bullying'? outrageous.

Sun, 2012-01-15 21:38 — Hriday

Christopher Hitchen, bless his soul, was right about the Catholic fundamentalist-Teresa woman.She was blind to child abuse, not unlike other Catholics ,right under her nose.Shame on her & her assocites who allowed child abuse by McGuire.

Wed, 2012-01-18 11:59 — Drakula

Martin H; I think that you have made some very insightful observations let the old whore die, let "the dead bury the dead."

As an epicurean I don't recognize Christ as being the only way to salvation. I have categorically rejected his claim as one of histories most monumental cons, and as a result I feel truly liberated.

I regard Jeshua as an important philosopher and his quote "I am the truth the light and the way etc.etc." has either been taken out of context or has been invented. Obviously used for a political agenda!!

Most all male monastery and priesthoods whether Christian or Buddhist or whatever have always attracted homosexual and sadly pedophiles because they are not natural human environments.

Cant we just throw all this out of the window, there's no heaven or hell just the never ending expanding universe which is a miracle in itself.

In the beginning was the big-bang!

Thu, 2012-01-12 18:23 — David Lindsay

Since this site will not post my comment, see http://davidaslindsay.blogspot.com/2011/11/ealing-tragedy.html.

Thu, 2012-01-12 18:37 — jankaas (not verified)

@David

either you are yourself a homosexual, or, just completely and utterly unhinged. i don't mind either btw but there is no other explanation for your ridiculous blogspot content.

you write unintelligible drivel like this, and proudly link to it! from your site;

"After decades of teaching both children and adults that sex between adults and children, especially teenage boys, was normal and healthy. "

that's just an insane fabrication. hence the rest of your claims don't even warrant serious analysis.

Fri, 2012-01-13 18:52 — David Lindsay

Read my second link. Go on. I dare you.

I might add that Catholic Canon Law prescribes an age of consent of 18. Anyone who breaks that breaks Canon Law, regardless of the law of the land. It is quite obvious who has the moral high ground there.

Fri, 2012-01-13 19:47 — jankaas (not verified)

read that link. it lists people you believe should not be allowed to speak freely. well bully for you.

"It is quite obvious who has the moral high ground there."

you actually think there is a moral high ground that is occupied by the Catholic Church? wow. let me guess, it's because priests have fucked and raped fewer girls than the secular abusers? is that about right for your defense of the Church?

see, i did read your blog...

Thu, 2012-01-12 20:00 — la potenza della speranza (not verified)

John Hardon? What an unfortunate moniker! He wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes in a Glasgow comprehensive.

Not that I am belittling the subject matter. The covering up of child abuse by the Church is indefensible and disgusting.

Thu, 2012-01-12 20:17 — la potenza della speranza (not verified)

@David Lindsay

I'm afraid I have to concur with Jankaas' assesment of your blog.

Fri, 2012-01-13 20:01 — David Lindsay

The Church has always taught that this conduct was wrong. Not so the people listed in my second post.

For Her won internal disciplinary purposes, the Church prescribes an age of consent of 18, even if the secular one is lower. And it would certainly be an awful lot lower if any of the people listed in my second post had their way.

Hunting season on the Church for what She has always condemned, but you and yours think is normal behaviour, is over.

Fri, 2012-01-13 20:32 — Keir

Romanist teaching inverts the message of the Bible. If there is a deity, it prevents access to same. So it corrupts mind and spirit.

If it also corrupts the body, to any theologian, that is no surprise.

Fri, 2012-01-13 20:55 — David Lindsay

No, Anthony Baxter, you are the one drawing the distinction. And that says all that needs to be said.

What, you thought that you were just going to get away this shakedown: gigantic compensation payments with no questions asked until the end of time, control of schools and other institutions handed over, the lot? Dream on. Our record is a hell of a lot better than that of our enemies.

Fri, 2012-01-13 21:58 — jankaas (not verified)

@David

so was i right in my assessment at 18:47 today? you appear mute on the subject.

same as you appear mute on my question to you previously. you make claims, i question them, and you start to side track.
do try and focus, you say on your blog; "After decades of teaching both children and adults that sex between adults and children, especially teenage boys, was normal and healthy. "

where are children and adults being taught this? i ask because i am part of a family covering all generations, from very young, to very old, and none of us have been 'taught' this. you have to answer this if you wish to be taken seriously. if you can't answer a straight question, then i am done with you.

Fri, 2012-01-13 22:12 — David Lindsay

jankaas, Anthony Baxter, rather answers your question by continuing to defend the child pornography peddled by Pullman and Lette, and by endorsing Thornton's view that O'Carrol should never have been prosecuted for putting paedophiles in touch with children through the contacts page of his magazine.

Such is our ruling class now. What was that, jankaas, about how no such ascendancy had been happening?

Fri, 2012-01-13 22:38 — jankaas (not verified)

@Anthony

"my distinction between"

and mine. thanks for pointing it out. i feel bad enough having failed to appreciate just how contemptuous an exercise it is to try and group these acts together. i couldn't imagine being loathsome enough to actually propose such a comparison.

i felt similarly on reading David's opinion that priests aren't as bad as secular pederasts, purely because on average they fuck less female children. how's that for splitting hairs....

Fri, 2012-01-13 22:41 — jankaas (not verified)

David Lindsay
13 January 2012 at 21:12

you failed to answer a simple question, so i am done with you unless you answer. your evasion is crushingly boring. what a great disappointment as an adult and a human being you are. imho of course.

Thu, 2012-01-12 22:45 — David Lindsay

We are talking here about what you clearly regard as consensual sex between men and teenage boys, which Peter Tatchell, for example, would legalise as such. Anything else - prepubsecent children, girls - is significantly less common among Catholic priests than in the population at large.

Tue, 2012-01-17 13:25 — Martin Horan (not verified)

Saintly is often mistaken for sanctimoniously, Mr Jones. I'm afraid you have thought Mother Teresa saintly when she was merely sanctimonious.
Jesus Christ and his apostles (none of whom were popes, incidently) condemned sanctimoniousness and religiousity. Indeed, it was such people among both the Roman and Jewish elites who persecuted the original Jewish Christians.
As I was "educated" by Marist Brothers (and the occasional nun) and taught an extremely subjective view of history by incredibly religious, therefore sanctimonious, people I can spot one of their kind from a mile away.
Besides the Inquisition, for which Mother Teresa--like every pope since the infernal thing--never apologised, she was a particularly confused woman.
As a Catholic, she was bound to uphold Unam Sanctum (that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church). Yet she told Moslems to remain Moslems and Hindus to remain Hindus, &c.
How does that tie up with Unam Sanctum? How does it tie up with Christ's statement, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man can come to the Father but by ME" [John 14:6]. Salvation, according to Jesus Christ was through him and not through a church or religion, especially a church which did not exist for a couple of centuries since his time.
Is it any surprise that child abusers are overlooked in the church of my late parents? They still cover up their involvement with the Nazis, their siding with Arab terrorists who slaughter both Jews and Christians, and they are still deeply involvement in banking and world politics.
Obviously their hierarchy think that when Christ taught, "love not the world nor the things that are of the world.." that he was talking baloney.
Their history and theology shouts that out very loudly.

Thu, 2012-01-12 23:44 — jankaas (not verified)

who is the 'you' that is doing the 'talking' in your post? i am inclined to conclude that you are talking to some or other imaginary pederast or pimp.

and, it it considered a minimum requirement to back up assertions with some data. or are you just allowed to pull any and all claims out of your bottom?

Fri, 2012-01-13 00:04 — David Lindsay

Read my second link and you - yes, you - will find plenty of data.

It is very high time that the Church stopped being bullied by pederasts and pimps, who only disapprove of sex between men and boys when Catholic priests do it.