As for the “if X gets so worked up about religion/God/Catholicism/whatever, then he must be a closet believer” theory: Come on, folks, try again. That’s like saying that anyone who gets angry about crime must be a criminal himself.

“How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world.

“Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion. ”

Note her emphasis on the fact that FATHERS must take responsibility for the children they take part in conceiving, and that abortion simply relieves the father of that responsibility. Does that sound like a chauvinistic “women must submit to men, no matter what” point of view?

Also, don’t forget that the Bible is NOT the sole source or authority for Catholic faith — “sola scriptura” was Luther’s idea! The Catholic Church also bases its teachings on Sacred Tradition, which provides the context in which the Bible is interpreted. So to toss around isolated Bible quotes out of context as “proof” of what the Catholic Church teaches seems a bit disingenuous.

“I know that couples have to plan their family and for that there is natural family planning. The way to plan the family is natural family planning, not contraception. In destroying the power of giving life, of loving; through contraception, a husband or wife is doing something to self. This turns the attention to self and so it destroys the gift of love in him or her. In loving, the husband and wife must turn the attention to each other as happens in natural family planning, and not to self, as happens in contraception. Once that living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily.

“That is why I never give a child to a family that has used contraception, because if the mother has destroyed the power of loving, how will she love my child? I also know there are great problems in the world, that many spouses do not love each other enough to practice natural family planning. We cannot solve the problems in the world, but let us never bring in the worst problem of all, to destroy love, to destroy life.

“The poor are very great people. They can teach us so many beautiful things. Once one of them came to thank us for teaching her natural family planning and said: “You people who have practiced chastity, you are the best people to teach us natural family planning because it is nothing more than self-control out of love for each other.” And what this poor person said is very true. These poor people maybe have nothing to eat, maybe they have not a home to live in, but they can still be great people when they are spiritually rich.”

What I did say is that BY NOT EDUCATING THEM in these areas they are more likely to become baby making machines…thus creating more poverty.
So this is why China has no poverty? I believe that a family is allowed ONE child, far from “baby making machines”. I know, I know; China is a communist state and that hinders their prosperity but the government strictly controls population (through state mandated contraception and abortion) and there is still poverty.

Are you ACTUALLY going to argue that a group of women who are educated about sex/safe sex are MORE likely to get pregnant than women who are not educated and simply told that contraception and abortions are the worlds greatest ill? I hope this is not what you think.

I will admit that I don’t precisely know what is taught but I seriously doubt that they are simply told “don’t ever use artificial contraception and never have an abortion” and sent on their way. I am eager to hear your insight as to what EXACTLY is taught to the women in Calcutta in regards to contraception.

Let’s assume you are right and it IS A PROBLEM WITH THE MEN. Well the dogma that Mother Teresa was preaching teaches that women should be submissive to men, yes? (I’m assuming you’ve read the Bible). So again, not only is she NOT EDUCATING WOMEN, she is ACTUALLY preaching a gospel that keeps them submissive.

I guess that is YOUR interpretation of the bible. I know that many people like to see this but it has never been taught that way to me. Not to mention the fact that the Dogma of the Catholic Church does not include that women are submissive to men. If you would like to check here is a link to The Roman Catholic Church Dogmas: http://www.theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm

Now going back to your first post:
Not only that but it was later discovered from her Diary and her letters to the Catholic church that she indeed to not feel God inside herself or in any of her actions. She was actually an atheist when it was all said and done.

(from time.com)
The church anticipates spiritually fallow periods. Indeed, the Spanish mystic St. John of the Cross in the 16th century coined the term the “dark night” of the soul to describe a characteristic stage in the growth of some spiritual masters. Teresa’s may be the most extensive such case on record. (The “dark night” of the 18th century mystic St. Paul of the Cross lasted 45 years; he ultimately recovered.) Yet Kolodiejchuk sees it in St. John’s context, as darkness within faith. Teresa found ways, starting in the early 1960s, to live with it and abandoned neither her belief nor her work. Kolodiejchuk (Come Be My Light’s editor and her postulator, responsible for petitioning for her sainthood and collecting the supporting materials) produced the book as proof of the faith-filled perseverance that he sees as her most spiritually heroic act.

Both Kolodiejchuk and Rev Matthew Martin(chairman of the theology department at the conservative Ave Maria University in Florida) assume that Teresa’s inability to perceive Christ in her life did not mean he wasn’t there. In fact, they see his absence as part of the divine gift that enabled her to do great work

Meanwhile, some familiar with the smiling mother’s extraordinary drive may diagnose her condition less as a gift of God than as a subconscious attempt at the most radical kind of humility: she punished herself with a crippling failure to counterbalance her great successes.

(Source: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655415,00.html#ixzz0W18njcRn )

It is hard to see God’s plan, especially when we are trying to see God’s plan for us.

1) I did not say that the women in Calcutta should go on the pill or abort babies.
2) What I did say is that BY NOT EDUCATING THEM in these areas they are more likely to become baby making machines…thus creating more poverty.
3) Are you ACTUALLY going to argue that a group of women who are educated about sex/safe sex are MORE likely to get pregnant than women who are not educated and simply told that contraception and abortions are the worlds greatest ill? I hope this is not what you think.
4) Let’s assume you are right and it IS A PROBLEM WITH THE MEN. Well the dogma that Mother Teresa was preaching teaches that women should be submissive to men, yes? (I’m assuming you’ve read the Bible). So again, not only is she NOT EDUCATING WOMEN, she is ACTUALLY preaching a gospel that keeps them submissive.

Women can’t make the rational choices you described in your second paragraph if they are not educated in these matters first.

Are they assuming that 1) women cannot control their sexual desires for any reason (which rules out natural family planning), 2) they cannot say “no” to any man who demands sex from them, 3) they cannot choose not to marry, or 4) all of the above?

If Hitchens’ assumption is that women in Indian culture are forced to marry and submit to sexual exploitation against their will, which means their only recourse against becoming “baby making machines” is to go on the Pill or to abort their babies when their oppressive chauvinistic husbands aren’t looking (good luck with that) — then doesn’t this seem to indicate there’s a bit of a problem with the MEN involved?

Ok so not only did you not address all of the issues i brought up, but the ones you did address you argued very poorly.

(side note)Abortion: Find me ONE passage in the Bible that says life starts at the moment of conception. After you fail at that. I want you to find me the passage in the Bible that says where life is……i’ll give you the answer…the Bible says life is in the blood (thats why they always sacrificed animals and other humans in the Old testament). So, a little Biology lesson for you. When does the baby have its own heart beat and thus its OWN blood life? 3 weeks. So EVEN if you want to take the pro-life route (for religious reasons), a women still has 3 weeks (according to your theology) to terminate the pregnancy before she takes a life.

Now, what i SAID was the emancipation and education of women coincides DIRECTLY with women realizing that they are not baby making machines. And when you tell women to not use contraception, that abortions are wrong and you don’t EDUCATE them then that hinders the social progress of women. Does it not? I’m not advocating for abortion, i’m asking to educate women. This is something mother Teresa did not do. She made matters worse.

As far as her letters go. Please go read them. The Catholic Church told her that her suffering was bringing her closer to God, SHE felt otherwise.

And next time when you want to challenge me please take each of my points one by one and debunk them as I have just done with your arguments. You can’t say I’m wrong, give 2 horrible reasons why and then think you are in the right.

Start here to prove me wrong: Please show how mother teresa helped the education and emancipation of women in Calcutta.

Good luck.