Did Mother Theresa believe in God?

[susan]

The Vatican has released some private letters written over a period of several years by the late saint, Mother Theresa, which appear to express doubts about the existence of God.
The Vatican released the letters to the world, contrary to Theresa's wishes that they be destroyed on her death.
In them she appears to have admitted to struggling with her faith and not being able to 'feel the presence of God.'
Apparently these doubts lasted for some fifty years and appear to run counter to her public image of a woman who was strong in her faith.
Some people might feel shocked by these revelations. However, many Christiains may well take comfort from the news that even saints can struggle with their beliefs and harbor private doubts from time to time.

[snowtiggerress]

i dont know much about Mother Theresa , but struggling with doubts about Gods' existence is something everyone faces at one time or another .some arer just more quiet about it than others

[Bird-Dog]

Mother Teresa. Saint of the Gutter. Mother of the hungry, the naked, the homeless, the crippled, the blind, the lepers, all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, and uncared-for.
Mother Teresa once observed, in a classic statement of her moral philosophy: “I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.” Mother Teresa is not saying that she is saddened by the suffering of the poor. She is saying that the suffering of the poor is “very beautiful.” She is not saying that she wants to see poverty and suffering ended. She is saying that the poor should simply “accept their lot” and “share it with the passion of Christ.”
You see, Mother Teresa believes that poverty and suffering are “gifts” from God. And the sisters in her order, The Missionaries of Charity, are taught that suffering makes God very happy. Mother Teresa once recounted, with a bright smile, how she had told a terminally ill cancer patient, who was suffering from unbearable pain, that, “You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you.” Now, get that. According to Mother Teresa, Jesus, who, remember, is a moral ideal in her religion, expresses his “love” through tormenting the sick and the dying, while his father - God - gets his kicks from watching their suffering. This is pure sadism. And, unfortunately for the poor, Mother Teresa was ruthlessly intent on making God a very happy deity.
Dr. Robin Fox, then the editor of a leading medical journal, visited Mother Teresa’s “Home for the Dying” in Calcutta back in 1994, when Mother Teresa was still alive. He revealed that Mother Teresa seldom permitted investigations into the medical condition of the poor under her care. As a result, curable diseases often went undetected. Dr. Fox notes that this lack of medical diagnosis was not the result of a lack of money, but was a deliberate policy on the part of Mother Teresa, designed to prevent, in his words, “any drift towards materialism.”
Dr. Fox also observed that the patients in Mother Teresa’s “Home for the Dying” were not provided with adequate analgesia. He writes, “On a short visit, I could not judge the power of their spiritual approach, but I was disturbed to learn that the formulary includes no strong analgesics. Along with the neglect of diagnosis, the lack of good analgesia marks Mother Teresa’s approach as clearly separate from the hospice movement. I know which I prefer.” Recall the terminally ill cancer patient whose “kiss” from Jesus provided Mother Teresa with such joy? It is likely that the reason why this patient was languishing in such agony was because Mother Teresa refused to provide him with sufficient analgesia. It was not a “kiss’ from Jesus that was causing this man such great pain, but the sadistic practices of a living Saint who revels in the suffering of the sick and the dying.
Dr. Fox is not the only person to have observed this phenomenon. Mary Loudon, who worked as a volunteer at the “Home for the Dying,” also observed that the poor were refused analgesics beyond aspirin or, if they were lucky, Brufen. Now, keep in mind that these people were suffering from the type of unbearable pain that accompanies such terminal illnesses as cancer and AIDS. And keep in mind that adequate analgesia was not refused due to a lack of money. In fact, as we shall soon see, Mother Teresa had millions of dollars available to spend on analgesics. The analgesia was refused, not out of financial necessity, but out of a commitment, on Mother Teresa’s part, to preserve the suffering of those in her care.
Elgy Gillespie recalls a similar story. She worked in “The Gift of Love,” a hostel established by Mother Teresa in San Francisco for men with HIV. (While Mother Teresa is best known for her work in Calcutta, her order offered “help” to the poor in many countries across the world.) Now, Mother Teresa believes that AIDS is a “just retribution” for living an immoral lifestyle. And in “The Gift of Love” the patients are not allowed to watch television, smoke, drink, or even have friends over. Even when a patient is near death, he is not allowed to see his friends. Gillespie tells how one patient left the hostel to be taken care of by a friend. As the patient’s condition deteriorated, the friend was no longer able to take care of him. The patient begged his friend not send him back to “The Gift of Love.” He knew that it would mean he would have to die without morphine. Don’t be surprised. When one remembers that “love,” for Mother Teresa, means the type of “love” that a serial killer feels for his victims, the name of this hostel - “The Gift of Love” - takes on sinister connotations.
Susan Shields was a sister in Mother Teresa’s order for almost ten years. She recalls how the sisters would reuse unsterilised needles until they became blunt, which, apart from the serious health risks, would cause intense pain to their “patients” (that is, their victims). Some volunteers, who were helping the sisters, offered to obtain more needles, but the offer was refused. The needles were left unsterilised and were reused until they were blunt, not because of a lack of money, or a lack of available needles, but because Mother Teresa wanted to preserve, in Shields’ own words, “the spirit of poverty.”
Mother Teresa’s work did not only harm the lives of the poor. Her moral philosophy is in principle anti-life, and so, as one would expect, it is also self-destructive. The sisters in Mother Teresa’s order believe that the more they suffer the more God dispenses graces to the world. The result is that the sisters allow their own health to be destroyed and switch off any form of independent thought. As Shields explains, “When I left, there were more than 3,000 sisters in approximately 400 houses scattered throughout the world. Many of these sisters who trusted Mother Teresa to guide them have become broken people. ... It is difficult for them to decide to leave - their self-confidence has been destroyed, and they have no education beyond what they brought with them when they joined. I was one of the lucky ones who mustered enough courage to walk away.”
Now, it is important to stress that the lack of medical diagnosis, the lack of good analgesia, and the reuse of unsterilised needles until they become blunt is not the result of a lack of money. Mother Teresa’s order is in fact worth millions of dollars. But almost none of this money is spent on the poor. As Shields, who was involved in collecting donations for the order, observes, “[T]he millions of dollars accumulating in the bank were treated as if they did not exist.” And here one needs to understand Mother Teresa’s attitude towards donations. If The Missionaries of Charity received greater donations than the other orders, this was taken as a sign that God was pleased with the work they were doing. The money - which could have saved thousands of lives - was used to gauge God’s pleasure; it was not used to relieve suffering or to alleviate poverty.
Our story does not stop here. Observe that Mother Teresa - in over forty years of missionary work - did not actually reduce poverty in the slightest. But then that was never her intention. In fact, Mother Teresa played a role in helping to create the very poor she was renowned for “helping” (and should be renowned for brutalising). You see, Mother Teresa believes that the use of any form of birth control involves the taking of a life. As Christopher Hitchens explains, “For her, contraception was a crime equal to abortion, and all abortion a crime equal to murder.” Mother Teresa’s own birth control policies have been instrumental in creating a whole new generation of poor. And if the children in Mother Teresa’s orphanages are being treated with unsterilised needles, and there is good reason to believe that they are, then there is a good chance that they will soon find themselves transferred to her “Home for the Dying,” where no doubt a “kiss” from Jesus awaits them.
It is also important to consider the political situation in Calcutta. Calcutta is the capital of the Indian state of West Bengal, which has been ruled by the democratically elected Left Front for the past 24 years. The Left Front is a coalition of ten left-wing parties. The dominant member of the coalition is the Communist Party of India. (There are in fact two communist parties in India with the same name. This is the Marxist version.) Now, fortunately for the poor of Calcutta, the solution to poverty is already known. Unfortunately for the poor of Calcutta, the solution is not communism. In fact, one of the reasons why the poor of Calcutta are poor - if not the reason - is because they are essentially living in a communist state (albeit democratically elected). And while Mother Teresa is no communist, her moral ideals are very much in accord with communist doctrine. Mother Teresa cannot be blamed for the political situation in Calcutta, but it is nonetheless the political expression of her moral ideals that is keeping the poor in Calcutta poor.
I said that the solution to poverty is known. What is the solution? Nothing less than complete, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism grounded in a morality of egoism. The fact is that companies such as Nike and GAP often do more to alleviate poverty in places such as Calcutta, by employing the poor in their factories at very low wages, than a world of Mother Teresas, and, more importantly, they do so without adopting Mother Teresa’s sadistic practices. You see, companies such as Nike and GAP are purely motivated by self-interest. They do not care about the poor. They are only concerned about increasing their profits. And the poor do not care about Nike or GAP. They are only concerned with raising their own standard of living. This mutuality of self-interests preserves the dignity of both parties and operates to their mutual benefit. The result is the alleviation - and eventually the elimination - of poverty. And it is done without any sacrifice. (For evidence, read Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal or George Reisman’s Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics.)
I cannot help but conclude that Mother Teresa would have done much more good for the poor had she become something useful, like a prostitute or a drug dealer, or better still, a banker or the head of a multi-national corporation.
(Originally published in April 2001)
Reference:
Christopher Hitchens, The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice. London; New York: Verso, 1995.

[snowtiggerress]

damn ...... sounds like one sadistic B*t*h to me

[susan]

Thank you for that Bird Dog. That was very enlightening. Of course I have known for some time that Teresa was against birth control or abortion.
In that she upheld the policies of the Catholic Church, and policies moreover, which I believe exist to this day. In Third World countries, the Sisters of her Order are forbidden by the Catholic Church to educate the poor on the value of contraception - they can't even discuss it. Even condoms are a taboo subject. Thus the poor - condemned to ignorance - continue to give birth to too many children.
I believe Teresa was very much a woman of the Establishment - the Church Establishment that is.
In fact I think she was a staunch Catholic first, and a saint to the poor second.
The idea of 'suffering' has always appealed to the Catholic Church, from the days of the Inquisition, to the sadistic priests and nuns who liberally handed out beatings to errant pupils in schools under their care. One of the reasons behind this was the belief amongst Catholic clergy that if you beat someone hard enough, you will beat the devil out of them. Thus beatings became almost a form of exorcism. My late mother remembered the caning she received at the hands of a Catholic priest in her school.
So I believe that Mother Teresa echoed and upheld a very Catholic sentiment when she declared once that there was 'value in suffering.'
I do not think that she was any worse than any other important figure in her Church, but she was certainly a perfect figurehead for many of its beliefs and doctrines.
One last thing. Teresa disliked the idea of her nuns receiving any intellectual training or education. She appeared to believe that the Sisters under her jurisdiction should continue to serve their God in a menial capacity. So despite her high profile as a woman, she appeared to have some very consevative ideas about women.

[xx_exit13_xx]

Not a religious zealot but i believe in the God works in mysterious ways thing if you know what i mean..

[johnsmith23687]

Mother Teresa was the best human for god,because she believed in help to others.I think the god gives us somthing if we help some others.Mother Teresa spoil her life for others.So,she is believe in God.

[susan]

Mother Teresa was the best human for god,because she believed in help to others.I think the god gives us somthing if we help some others.Mother Teresa spoil her life for others.So,she is believe in God.

Mother Theresa seemed to be saying that there was value in suffering. In saying that, she was actually expressing a very Catholic sentiment, that somehow, suffering can get you into Heaven. Only those who have felt pain can be saved i.e. the poor and the downtrodden.
That same sentiment, that suffering is 'good' for you, led to so many boys (and girls) being beaten in Catholic schools and convents. It was a kind of ritual, almost an exorcism in a way. The idea was that by being beaten, the devil would be beaten out of the child.
Of course, they have probably largely abandoned the practice nowadays. But it still might survive in odd corners here and there.
I have some sympathy with this point of view, however. Suffering can sometimes be beneficial. If we didn't go through unpleasant experiences sometimes, we would probably not end up as very rounded or mature individuals.
Suffering can teach us some important lessons.
The question for me is: how much suffering is acceptable?
Some people suffer so much that in the end it can be counter-productive and excessively cruel.
The person who has lived all their life in pain, be it mental or physical; the parents who's children have been murdered; children who have been hungry all their lives or terminaly ill; victims of murder, rape, torture, abuse, slander. The list goes on.
How much suffering, and what type is acceptable before it becomes just plain cruel and pointless?
To suffer seems an inevitable part of the human condition. But when it becomes excessive you have to question whether it is acceptable for teaching us anything worthwhile at all.

[dougdegraw]

The Vatican has released some private letters written over a period of several years by the late saint, Mother Theresa, which appear to express doubts about the existence of God.
The Vatican released the letters to the world, contrary to Theresa's wishes that they be destroyed on her death.
In them she appears to have admitted to struggling with her faith and not being able to 'feel the presence of God.'
Apparently these doubts lasted for some fifty years and appear to run counter to her public image of a woman who was strong in her faith.
Some people might feel shocked by these revelations. However, many Christiains may well take comfort from the news that even saints can struggle with their beliefs and harbor private doubts from time to time.

Mother Theresa was before anything else, a human being and therefore imperfect by definition. She also served in some of the worst areas of the world, and even the best can have their faith shaken by what she probably saw, wondering how any diety could allow it. But no matter her particular doubt, she still dedicated here life to service and that is something that can't be taken away from her.

although I will question labeling fifty years of questioning letters as "harboring doubts from time to time".