FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Why the Left Hates Mother Teresa of Calcutta
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2

From Breitbart:




Why the Left Hates Mother Teresa of Calcutta
by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.
3 Sep 2016


As the world awaits Mother Teresa’s canonization Sunday, one mystery remains: why the international Left still harbors such hatred for a diminutive religious sister who spent her entire life serving the poorest of the poor.

After all, with her inexhaustible dedication to alleviating poverty and assisting the needy, Mother Teresa should be an icon of liberals the world over. Instead, we find that the Left showers her not with affection and praise, but with scorn and disdain.

On September 1, The Washington Post published an article titled “Why Mother Teresa Is Still No Saint to Many of Her Critics,” citing harsh condemnations of the nun by Hindu nationalists and cataloguing the complaints lodged against the missionary’s work through the decades.

Earlier this year, Salon called Mother Teresa “repugnant,” accusing her of glorifying suffering instead of relieving it. “Judged by any metric of medical standards,” the piece stated, “it is difficult to remember her legacy as anything other than an inefficient, sanctimonious and wholly ideological franchise.”

Vox Wrote:
Mother Teresa wasn't a medical doctor. She couldn't prescribe pills; she could only make the dying more comfortable and make sure they were cared for and felt loved. She dedicated her life to that. But that's apparently not good enough for the haters -- who, of course, see no value in suffering.

Last weekend, The New York Times showcased “one of the most vocal critics” of Mother Teresa, an Indian physician named Aroup Chatterjee who has made a career out of casting aspersions on the work of the Albanian nun.

Chatterjee calls Teresa’s work “an imperialist venture of the Catholic Church against an Eastern population.”

Vox Wrote:Wonder if there are any Hindu groups who do what the Sisters of Charity do. I doubt it somehow.

“I just thought that this myth had to be challenged,” he added.

In 1994, Dr. Chatterjee teamed up with professional atheist Christopher Hitchens to produce a documentary trashing Mother Teresa and her missionaries, called “Hell’s Angel.”


Shortly afterward, Hitchens cashed in on Mother Teresa’s immense popularity by writing his own bestselling book excoriating the sister, irreverently titled The Missionary Position.

In this “exposé,” Hitchens calls Mother Teresa “a religious fundamentalist, a political operative, a primitive sermonizer, and an accomplice of worldly secular powers,” as well as asserting that the secret ulterior motive behind all her work was “furthering Catholic doctrine.”

Vox Wrote:
Oh, no! "Furthering Catholic doctrine!" That's even worse than killing babies in the womb!


So the questions again present themselves: Why so much hatred? Why so much deep-seated anger against this woman?

Sifting through the literature dedicated to smearing the legacy of Mother Teresa, one discovers that all the arguments against her really boil down to two, which the Left can never forgive: her vocal and intransigent opposition to abortion and her overtly Christian spirituality that moved her to pour herself out for her fellow man.

Vox Wrote:
I emphasized the above in bold. That's all it takes to be "a bad guy" these days. Just love God, and love people, including unborn babies. Surreal, isn't it?

All the other reasons given—that she provided inferior health care, that she was occasionally irritable with coworkers, that she accepted donations from morally ambiguous characters—are really just a cover for the two that irked the Left to the point of hysteria.

And hysteria it has been.

In a noteworthy 1986 essay published by the international abortion giant Planned Parenthood, titled “Mother Teresa, the Woman of My Nightmares,” one gets a taste of the profound odium stirred up by this simple religious sister.

“This very successful old and withered person, who doesn’t look in the least like a woman, especially when she raises her clenched fists in prayer, and who, for us, is a very suspect holder of the Nobel Prize,” Planned Parenthood wrote in its official publication Sexualpedagogik, “has become for us the symbol of all that is bad in motherhood and womanhood, an image with which we do not wish to be associated.”

Vox Wrote:Don't you just love the ageism in all that? To be "old" and "withered" is the one of the few sins left.  And then there's that "doesn't look in the least like a woman" bit, which comes off as an insult to all the "men trapped in women's bodies" out there. I mean, who is Planned Parenthood to decide who "looks like a woman" and who doesn't?

But I wonder why Planned Parenthood thinks they're in any way "associated" with Mother Teresa in the first place. What's up with that?

“You, you nightmare of women! You unliberated, enslaved wives, mothers, nuns and aunts, what do you want from us, who have finally decided that we are going to take control of our bodies, our children, and our destiny into our own hands?” it ran.

Abortion, in fact, formed the centerpiece of Mother Teresa’s definition of poverty and all that is wrong with the world. The three most public speeches of her career—her acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, her Harvard Commencement address, and her words at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C.—all focused on abortion as the greatest social injustice in the world today.

For Mother Teresa, the voiceless unborn child was truly the “poorest of the poor,” who deserves our undying respect and protection.

In her acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979, for instance, she dared to say, “I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a direct war, a direct killing – direct murder by the mother herself.”

At the National Prayer Breakfast in 1994, the politically incorrect sister told then-President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary that abortion is a “war against the child.”

“And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?” the nun continued.

Vox Wrote:Bill and Hillary have no problems pushing the murdering of children while telling people to not kill one another -- and while killing off people who have too much information on them.

“By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems,” she said. “Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want.”

But opposition to abortion was not the only crime that earned Mother Teresa the undying ire of the Left. She was also irritatingly… religious. Instead of secular philanthropy, she engaged in old-school Christian charity, picking the dying up off the street and holding them in her arms as they passed away, for the love of God.

Mother Teresa was guilty, in fact, of the great modern sin of political incorrectness. She freely and unapologetically invoked her love for Jesus Christ as the reason behind everything she did, a practice that is anathema to a world antiseptically cleansed from the grime of religious piety.

“I see Jesus in every human being,” she said. “I say to myself, this is hungry Jesus, I must feed him. This is sick Jesus. This one has leprosy or gangrene; I must wash him and tend to him. I serve because I love Jesus.”

Despite her spiritual motivations, however, Mother Teresa was an avowed enemy of proselytism in her work with the poor. She offered love and assistance to all, without ever making conversion a condition or even an aim of her care.

“We never try to convert those whom we receive to Christianity,” she said, “but in our work we bear witness to the love of God’s presence, and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men—simply better—we will be satisfied.”

Teresa believed that those who find love find God, and that the best way to bring people to God is by sharing our love with them. “Let no one ever come to you without leaving better and happier,” she said. “Be the living expression of God’s kindness: kindness in your face, kindness in your eyes, kindness in your smile.”

Vox Wrote:While I am very much down with the "preach the Gospel; use words if necessary" idea attributed to St. Francis, I also think that plain old preaching -- done prudently, in the right way, at the right time, with deep sensitivity to one's audience and how they understand things, without judgment of others' souls, etc. -- is also necessary. I give Mother Teresa the benefit of the doubt here and assume she saw herself as preaching the Gospel without words. I hope that was the case anyway, and it seems to me that anyone who'd do what she did with her life, all for the love of Our Lord, undoubtedly knew very well the importance of the Gospel message.

As Pope Francis canonizes Mother Teresa of Calcutta Sunday morning, one group will not be standing by to join the applause: the disaffected Left who cannot forgive the Albanian nun for her deeply Christian charity or her staunch opposition to abortion.

Even in this “year of mercy,” some sins can never be forgiven.
While I don't think she would have been canonised under the old system, if there's this much hatred towards someone by the left, that's a pretty good sign she's doing something good.

Sancta Teresia, ora pro nobis.
Mother Teresa was a very holy woman. I hope this part of her life is remembered, because that's why she's a saint. She endured great spiritual desolation for decades, yet persevered.

"if I become a saint, I will surely be one of darkness."

"To be in love and yet not to love, to live by faith and yet not to believe. To spend myself and yet to be in total darkness"

In an age that equates faith with feelings, and considers commitment to be dependent on feelings, Mother Teresa is a model saint for today's world.
It's not just the left though. There are plenty of traditionalists who aren't a fan of her due to her seemingly not caring about converting people to become Catholic (which is funny when you see how the left accuses her of pushing Catholicism on people). Unfortunately, one cannot take solace in any Saint's canonization due to the lax process of today's church and the seemingly non-infallible nature of it.
The immediate impression I get from reading the Comments (all 572 of them, wow) of squalid little rags like the "Globe and Mail" is twofold:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-.../comments/

1. The people who are complaining about how evil she was are privileged white agnostics. They've never spent two years in a filthy place where no one cares about human beings that are lower on the social order. They've not had to deal with not having enough hypodermic needles, nor seeing people foaming at the mouth & writing around on the floor while dying. They've done and seen nothing except movies and their own God-hating universe. They can't possibly understand how hard it is to show love to these dilapidated human beings.

2. I notice it's never "I heard Richard Dawkins speak", then "I learned about bad people in the Church", then "I became an atheist. It's always "I learned about people I disagree with in the Church", then "I stopped trusting the Church", then "I heard Dawkins one day, and he showed how religion is just a cultural phenomenon of evolves animals", then atheism.

It's never, ever begun by real belief, logic, reason, etc., with regards to God. It's about being confronted with stuff you don't want to see, or don't like to be reminded about. It's about a selfish solipsism and being unable to see that people are people, rather than automatons of a puppeteer in the sky.

>:(
Quote:“You, you nightmare of women! You unliberated, enslaved wives, mothers, nuns and aunts, what do you want from us, who have finally decided that we are going to take control of our bodies, our children, and our destiny into our own hands?”

This sounds like a scream from Hell!
(09-06-2016, 11:04 AM)Heorot Wrote: [ -> ]The immediate impression I get from reading the Comments (all 572 of them, wow) of squalid little rags like the "Globe and Mail" is twofold:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-.../comments/

1. The people who are complaining about how evil she was are privileged white agnostics. They've never spent two years in a filthy place where no one cares about human beings that are lower on the social order. They've not had to deal with not having enough hypodermic needles, nor seeing people foaming at the mouth & writing around on the floor while dying. They've done and seen nothing except movies and their own God-hating universe. They can't possibly understand how hard it is to show love to these dilapidated human beings.

2. I notice it's never "I heard Richard Dawkins speak", then "I learned about bad people in the Church", then "I became an atheist. It's always "I learned about people I disagree with in the Church", then "I stopped trusting the Church", then "I heard Dawkins one day, and he showed how religion is just a cultural phenomenon of evolves animals", then atheism.

It's never, ever begun by real belief, logic, reason, etc., with regards to God. It's about being confronted with stuff you don't want to see, or don't like to be reminded about. It's about a selfish solipsism and being unable to see that people are people, rather than automatons of a puppeteer in the sky.

>:(

I think a lot of people fall into atheism because of despair over something that happened in their lives. They feel betrayed by a God who would allow such and such a thing to happen or by people who claim to be of that religion and would do such a terrible thing. It's usually not by the use of logic, it's because of emotion and selfishness. They then use people like Dawkins and the scientific fallacy of "if science can't explain it, then it doesn't exist" to help reassure themselves.
The Left hates Mother Theresa of Calcutta because she is so Catholic.
(09-06-2016, 10:21 AM)GangGreen Wrote: [ -> ]Unfortunately, one cannot take solace in any Saint's canonization due to the lax process of today's church and the seemingly non-infallible nature of it.
How is modern canonization "non-infallible"? Or are you some sede loon?
They didn't outright proselytize but they did offer baptism to those near death.

I love this video interview of a volunteer.  In fact the whole movie is really good.  I watch it once a year!



full movie:
Pages: 1 2