Reflections on Mother Teresa

[TrueChristian]

I have been reading about the late, great Mother Teresa lately.

I agree she wasn't as "saintly" as she appeared. She apparently believed that pain, suffering and poverty were "good for the soul" and that those who were in third world poverty were "privileged" to be poor. She seemed to believe in assuaging poverty (by providing crusts of bread, bowls of soup and a nice shack to die in), but not in actually curing it, something she could have done if she so wished with her millions of dollars in the Vatican bank.

It is funny though that so few people are really aware of what Mother Teresa's true mission was. Really only confirmed atheists/agnostics seem to be aware of it. .

The vast majority of the world of whatever religion or irreligion just beleive Mother Teresa was a saint who cared deeply about the poor, and think nothing more of her. Christopher Hitchens expose on her may have truly been the most radical, substantial contributation he made to the world of human knowledge.

No one, whether religious or secular seemed to have anyhthing to gain from exposing her. Neither did Hitch, he just thought it was right to do.

It is in my opinion though that orthodox Catholics will cling to and defend her to the bitter end, far more than their other modern (shit covered) treasure, Pope John Paul II .

I believe it is because of her celebrity/saint status (not a bad status for a resume!) and her universal love, make it thus.

[Silver]

Theists think god is good because of how he enjoys inflicting pain on his creations. Therefore, it is not too far fetched for the church to consider Theresa to be saintly because she could only feel better about herself when others suffered.

[Living in Death]

Yeah, I remember seeing Mother Teresa's true methods and intentions exposed in a Penn and Teller BS episode (one featuring Hitchens). I thought it was crazy that she was appraised of being a saint despite practically being a passive torturer.

[Cyberman]

"Mother Teresa", Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, wasn't great. She was a cunt. And not the nice way.

[Silver]

She was nothing more than a veritable psycho with a god complex.

[TrueChristian]

"Mother Teresa", Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, wasn't great. She was a cunt. And not the nice way.

Wouldn't go that far. I think she was a deeply misguided and somewhat mentally ill and twisted person who  truly believed she was "helping" the poor, even if she chose not to act in their best interests.

It is baffling that so many people, secular and religious (of all religions) were willing to take her at her word.

[Cyberman]

I'd go that far. She used the suffering of others to make herself feel special. "Cunt" is a compliment by comparison.

[TrueChristian]

I'd go that far. She used the suffering of others to make herself feel special. "Cunt" is a compliment by comparison.

To make herself feel special? Not quite. To make the poor and their benefactors feel special.... yes.

She sincerely believed that the poor were "blessed" to experience their grinding poverty. In their desperation they could turn to Jesus and love him, in a way that the more affluent cannot (according to her.)

The poor's wretched state also made the rich draw close to Jesus, by seeing suffering people, they could feel compassion and give money to them, thus improving their spirtual state .

Many accuse the Catholic Church of inadvertently causing poverty by being absolutely deadset against a woman's reproductive autonomy. I think it may have been intentional on Teresa's part. She probably thought a couple who got by on $30 a month should feel "blessed" to not use contraception and enjoy having 10-12 kids. In their poverty, stress and desperation (Exacerbated by the kids) they could focus on Jesus instead of their own lives more.

Now that we know the nature of Mother T, this painting seems much more creepy: http://createsupernaturally.com/wp-conte...a-full.jpg

I could see why people would be taken in though. Most people just saw her (and still see her) as some cute old lady who wanted to help the poor. What would there be to criticize (or so most people thought.)

I read an article by Hitchens on this, and he basically said that no one apart from atheists have any incentive to expose her. The religious think she brings good press to religion, and few people want to admit they'd been fooled into thinking this was a woman who wanted to improve the material well-being of those in need.

I still believe the Faithful Catholics will fight tooth and nail to defend her against any criticism ( they already do, on the various Catholic forums I post on) .

I've said it before, but she is really the best they have. A recent "saint" who opposed contraception,abortion, euthaniasia, homosexuality, sex before marriage, divorce (except for her bestie, Princess Di) and many other things. Better than that she is loved by people of many backgrounds and thought of as a kind, altrusitic person.

In ten years though, I feel the truth about her will be widley known. I doubt more than 5% of the U.S population is aware of her suffering kink the way we are..

[Cyberman]

I don't care what she believed nor how sincerely she believed it. People were made to suffer simply in order to aggrandise this woman. Under any other circumstances, she would be regarded as an inhuman monster. Paint a crucifix on her and suddenly she's a saint.

[The Valkyrie]

Simply put, in my opinion, anyway, if you make your fame (and money) by saying you care for the poor but you don't make an effort to lift those people out of poverty, you are a hypocrite.

If you let people die in abject misery, is horrendous conditions, and then claim that the misery of these people makes them closer to god, while still collecting those millions, then you are a vile individual who should be shunned and condemned for their "actions".