+ about blog explore contest write login register
Mother Teresa: The Devil in a White Dress - NewViewNews
+

Responses

Agree

Disagree

Other

8

view responses
+

Respond

Do you...

agree disagree other
+

View Argument

Would you like to view the article in the split view?

Mother Teresa: The Devil in a White Dress

navid · religion · opinion · 10/10/2020 · edited

article image
According to the BBC1, there are five steps to becoming a saint. First, be dead for five years. Next, pass an "investigation" into your life to see whether or not you were a "servant of God." After this, provide proof of living a life of "heroic virtue." Fourth, have "verified" miracles. Finally, If you accomplish all of these steps, you will be declared a saint. Seems like they forgot to mention the "molest-young-children" step; although I guess that falls into the second one.

It's a daunting list, there's no question about that. Thinking about it, I don't personally know a single person who would meet more than two of these requirements. I guess that's the point: exclusivity and all. 

Just for fun, let's consider myself.

Firstly, I'm very much alive; getting off to a bad start already. Second, I'm an atheist and have hardly set foot in a church; we're doing quite poorly. Third, the most heroic act I've ever accomplished is thinking about helping an old lady cross the street. I never do it mind you, but, sometimes, I think about it. Finally, my greatest miracle is managing to sit through an entire episode of Fuller House without cutting off my ears, gouging out my eyes, and sticking my hand into a blender. Okay, half an episode. 

So yeah, I'm far from a saint myself. But even with all of my shortcomings considered, my left testicle is a hundred times more saintly than Mother Teresa ever was. If this woman can become a saint, Lucifer has to be next in line.

Before I continue, let me first clear a few things up. I'm an atheist but I'm not an anti-theist. If your religion grants you solace and doesn't hurt others, all the power to you. I'm not really focused on criticizing Catholicism (although I inevitably will in one way or another). My main goal is to paint Mother Teresa for who she really was: a two-faced, self-serving cretin who should have been Mussolinied rather than sainted.

Right, with that out of the way, let's get to the meat and bones of the issue.

Mother Teresa's primary claim to fame was the apparent work she did in former Calcutta (now Kolkata). She founded the Missionaries of Charity in order to help Calcutta's impoverished. Under its authority, Teresa opened hospices, orphanages, and clinics all free-of-charge to the public. 

Let's pause for a moment. At this point, you're probably asking me why I'm bringing this all up; it really doesn't help my case to talk about all of the charity work that the woman did. The reason I do this is to emphasize the appearance that Mother Teresa focused on projecting. By doing this, I can further emphasize the evil that is revealed as we begin to pull back the curtain. Right, back to it then.

To the average observer, this woman was by all means a saint. She dedicated her life to assisting those living in the deepest wallows of poverty. However, upon closer inspection, she did very little to end this poverty. Instead, she dedicated herself to perpetuating it.

The citizens of Calcutta to whom Teresa was tending were suffering primarily on two fronts: monetarily and hygienically. 70% of the residents of Calcutta's slums lived below the poverty line and STDs were rampant2. Teresa's primary focus was the latter issue. Her and, by proxy, the Missionaries of Charity's philosophy was based on frugality (at least when it came to others; I'll return to this). As a result, her so-called clinics were far more deadly than they were helpful. 

They were ran by fellow missionaries and volunteers who had little-to-no medical background or understanding. They often reused hypodermic needles and practiced ancient medical techniques when treating their patients3. Mind you, this is in a population infested with HIV/AIDs and other STDs. Volunteers actively increased the risk of the spread of these already-rampant diseases. 

These inexperienced volunteers practicing medicine would be like if you asked a toddler who barely knew simple addition to teach you geometry. Except, instead of the consequences being you leaving with fundamental misunderstanding of the pythagorean theorem and having to deal with your poor decision making skills to ask an uneducated toddler to teach you a relatively-complex topic, you would be dead. 

You may be thinking that she simply didn't know better: she was a poor woman trying to do right by others. Her shortcomings weren't acts of malice, they were acts of naivety. 

I might be inclined to agree with you if I took her work at face-value. However, beneath that wrinkly, seemingly-sincere grin of hers is a face of deceit.

She simply didn't have the money huh? How about that $29 million budget she had to run her clinic4? Or what about the other millions donated to her from various famous patrons5? She didn't use that money to help the suffering. Instead, she offered them her prayers. Nice going Teresa. What's the conversion rate between prayers and dollars again? I know heaven has had a really bad quarter with COVID so we might be in a bit of trouble.

This is where everything about Teresa begins to crumble. Her goal was helping the impoverished masses right? Then why would she say that "there's something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ's passion. The world gains much from their suffering."6 That sounds like a monologue from a creepy puppet in a horror movie right before she guts the protagonist. I don't know about you, but if I had a nurse/doctor say that before treating me I would be out of that hospital faster than you can say "love thy neighbor." Or, more realistically, I would at least want a discount.

This hell-spawn of a woman crawled her way to Calcutta, a city destroyed by poverty and illness, and asked herself: "how can I make this worse?"

What about actively bashing contraceptives in a city marred by STDs? Yup she did that7. How about disavowing most modern medicine in a city destroyed by tuberculosis and other devastating disease. Mhm, that too. Anti women's rights, anti abortion, anti science. Check, check, and check.

Now, I understand, a missionary's job is to spread the word of their god and a lot of the aforementioned issues stem from the Bible and not necessarily Teresa's personal convictions. However, when you set up a "clinic," you are assuming the responsibility of providing care to people. Or, at the very least, not actively harming their health. Teresa maliciously failed in both regards. 

If you need further evidence of her purposeful malice, let's take a look at how she addressed medical concerns she dealt with herself. It's funny that the woman who slandered modern medicine to all her patients and "followers", resorts to that very same medicine when her life is at risk8. So she did believe in modern medicine, just not for the impoverished. Real saintly.

To really seal the deal and put the cherry on the shit-sundae. She secretly baptized her patients as they breathed their last breaths9. Not only had she likely lead to their deaths, she had to strip their religious freedoms in their final moments. 

Mother Teresa wasn't a servant to the poor or the impoverished. She was a militant Catholic who was hellbent on shoving the Bible so far down the throats of her "followers" that their stomach acid burned her finger tips. She was a raging hypocrite who, instead of helping up the fallen around her, pressed her foot on their necks. All the while, indulging in the same exercises she had deemed as sinful for the masses. The Angel of Mercy? More like the Devil in a White Dress.

I mean seriously, if this woman was considered a "Mother" then CPS screwed up royally. It's too bad that she died a virgin as I would've liked to have invited her to go fuck herself.

Edit: I didn't touch on the ridiculousness of her "miracles" as I felt that was more of an attack on the religion rather than the woman. I invite you to look into them yourselves and come to your own conclusions.

Sources

(1) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27140646
(2) https://www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu-projects/Global_Report/cities/kolkata.htm
(3) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/27/world/asia/mother-teresa-critic.html
(4) https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/03/25/should-mother-teresa-be-canonized/mother-teresa-doesnt-deserve-sainthood
(5) https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/09/mother-teresa-sainthood-canonized
(6) https://allthatsinteresting.com/mother-teresa-saint/2
(7) https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/mother-teresa-wasnt-a-saintly-person-she-was-a-shrewd-operator-with-unpalatable-views-who-knew-how-a7224846.html
(8) https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-12-02-mn-312-story.html#:~:text=Mother%20Teresa%20underwent%20surgery%20Friday,resting%20comfortably%20after%20the%20operation.
(9) https://historycollection.com/mother-teresa-8-reasons-believe-no-saint/3/

Other Articles

0 Comments

Please log in to comment.