Charles Keating gave other people’s money to Mother Teresa

Charles Keating's campaign against ‘Hustler’ magazine was featured in the film ‘The People Versus Larry Flynt’

This is Charles Keating. He stole $252,000,000 (£126,671,335) from people who he tricked into thinking they were making low risk investments, but were in fact funding his exuberant lifestyle and his frothing at the mouth hate campaign against anything non-catholic which he considered to be therefore pornographic and sinful.

Mother Teresa really liked Charles Keating. So much so, in fact, did she really not want him to go to prison, for fleecing thousands of hard working Americans out of millions of dollars, some of which she had gratefully received as gifts from Keating, that she wrote to the trial judge on his behalf, begging for the understanding Jesus would show to such a generous man.

Mother Teresa's letter to judge Ito in the trial of Charles Keating, taken from Christopher Hitchen's book 'The Missionairy Position: Mother Teresa in theory and practise'

In her letter to the judge, she claimed to know nothing of Mr. Keating’s business or politics. To remind her of these trifling details, the deputy district attorney replied to Mother Teresa – explaining in no uncertain terms that, in his view, Jesus himself, if confronted with a man like Keating, would have no qualms about returning the money which had been given to him as it had been given to her, by a confidence trickster of Mr. Keating’s gaul and self-righteous insistence that other people are to blame for his actions.

Dear Mother Teresa:
I am a Deputy District Attorney in Los Angeles County and one of the persons who worked on the prosecution of your benefactor, Charles H. Keating, Jr. I read your letter to Judge Ito, written on behalf of Mr. Keating, which includes your admission that you know nothing about Mr. Keating’s business or the criminal charges presented to Judge Ito. I am writing to you to provide a brief explanation of the crimes of which Mr. Keating has been convicted, to give you an understanding of the source of the money that Mr. Keating gave to you, and to suggest that you perform the moral and ethical act of returning the money to its rightful owners.

The biblical slogan of your organization is ‘As long as you did it to one of these My least brethren. You did it to Me’. The ‘least’ of the brethren are among those whom Mr. Keating fleeced without flinching. As you well know, divine forgiveness is available to all, but forgiveness must be preceded by admission of sin. Not only has Mr. Keating failed to admit his sins and his crimes, he persists in selfrighteously blaming others for his own misdeeds. Your experience is, admirably, with the poor. My experience has been with the ‘con’ man and the perpetrator of the fraud. It is not uncommon for ‘con’ men to be generous with family, friends and charities. Perhaps they believe that their generosity will purchase love, respect or forgiveness. However, the time when the purchase of ‘indulgences’ was an acceptable method of seeking forgiveness died with the Reformation. No church, no charity, no organisation should allow itself to be used as salve for the conscience of the criminal.

Mother Teresa meeting the then head of the world's oldest intelligence agency and executor of the richest tax exempt organisation in the world.

I remind myself of the biblical admonition of the Prophet Micah: ‘0 man, what is good and what does the Lord require of you. To do justice, love mercy and walk humbly.’ We are urged to love mercy but we must do justice. You urge Judge Ito to look into his heart – as he sentences Charles Keating – and do what Jesus would do. I submit the same challenge to you.

Ask yourself what Jesus would do if he were given the fruits of a crime; what Jesus would do if he were in possession of money that had been stolen; what Jesus would do if he were being exploited by a thief to ease his conscience? I submit that Jesus would promptly and unhesitatingly return the stolen property to its rightful owners. You should do the same. You have been given money by Mr. Keating that he has been convicted of stealing by fraud. Do not permit him the ‘indulgence’ he desires. Do not keep the money. Return it to those who worked for it and earned it!

If you contact me I will put you in direct contact with the rightful owners of the property now in your possession.

To this day Paul W. Turley awaits a reply from Mother Teresa, as do the thousands of people Charles Keating swindled. If she is the shining light of Catholic Christian values; the torch barer of all that is moral and good, we are constantly told by the religious only those with faith in God can espouse and exude, you’ll forgive me if I don’t hold my breath while waiting for someone to effectually excuse her simple inability to read the above, understand its modest requests and act appropriately.

The truth about Mother Teresa of Calcutta

In 1968, Malcolm Muggeridge – a British writer and broadcaster – made a film for the BBC called ‘Something Beautiful for God’, which by way of telling his own story on how he had converted to Christianity from a near life long agnosticism, featured an interview with and a visit to a hospital for the destitute sick and dying which was ran by an unknown nun from Albania, living and working in India, called Agnes Gonxhe Bojaxhiu.

Finding it hard to photograph in the low light of the interior in the Mother’s ‘Home for the dying’, cameraman Kenneth MacMillan decided to load a new kind of film into his camera, which had been sent to the BBC by Kodak to be used in just such conditions.

Upon the crew’s return to London and in the editing suite, unsure if they had managed to capture anything of the conditions inside the hospice at all, Ken was amazed to find that every detail had been captured and that the new Kodak film had indeed performed brilliantly.

About to stand to his feet and applaud modern photographic technology, Ken’s praise for Kodak’s new process was immediately snatched from him, as Muggeridge leapt to his feet, proclaiming it to be the light of Mother Teresa and the first photographic evidence of a miracle. The legend of Mother Teresa was born.

Following her death in 1997, the Vatican began the process of canonising her, but for this to proceed towards full sainthood, the Church had to first establish documentry “evidence” of her having performed a miracle. Duly, In 2002, the Vatican recognised as a miracle the healing of a tumor in Monica Besra’s abdomen, following the application of a locket containing a picture of Mother Teresa, despite the protestations of both medical staff and the “healed” woman’s husband that, in fact, modern medicine and chemotherapy had actually been responsible for her successful recovery from a treatable cancer.

Mother Teresa was used by the Vatican, who happily ignored her work in India for decades, before she courted the attention and platitudes of royalty, tin-pot banana republic dictators and American presidents alike; as indeed they continue to use her now in death, for no other reason than to project an image of being in touch with the poor, despite in reality being completely disinterested in their desperate needs.

At the height of her international fame, the Vatican was fighting against an image, not helped by the increasingly extravagant travelling arrangements of Pope John Paul II, Karol Józef Wojtyła, of being a rich church ignorant of the needs of the poor. Teresa gave them the image of a happy to be destitute for Christ simple little woman, looking after the lowest of the low; the least of God’s children, all for the love of the mother Church. She was, simply put, a PR gift from heaven.

In 2006 Mother Teresa’s personal correspondence with the Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk, revealed that she had for the last 50 years of her life, “felt no presence of God whatsoever, neither in her heart or in the Eucharist.”; the sacrament in which Catholics are obliged to believe that the communion bread and wine is no longer bread and wine, but is in fact transformed by the holy spirit into the actual body and blood of Christ, in a process known since the 11th century as transubstantiation.

“The smile,” she writes, is “a mask” or “a cloak that covers everything.” Similarly, she wonders whether she is engaged in verbal deception. “I spoke as if my very heart was in love with God — tender, personal love,” she remarks to an adviser. “If you were [there], you would have said, ‘What hypocrisy.’” [time.com]

Rather than being helped with her clear torment, at one point she was given an exorcism, to relieve her of “insomnia” and she was encouraged to think of these dark nights of the soul as a blessing, which brought her closer to the suffering of Christ on the cross. [BBC source]

The truth about Mother Teresa part two