Decrees of canonization: Mother Teresa of Calcutta will become a saint on September 4Mother Teresa of Calcutta, a saint for our timeSt. Teresa of Calcutta enters in the General Roman CalendarIn the heart of Vilnius City (Lithuania) tucked away on Šv. Stepono Street 35, the Missionaries of Charity run a modest but essential soup kitchen. Three times a week, the doors open to welcome the homeless and hungry, offering not just a meal but a moment of dignity. For years, I have invited friends to volunteer alongside me in this work of service. Some eagerly accept, while others hesitate often raising an eyebrow when they learn that the centre is run by the order founded by Mother Teresa of Calcutta.
Her name, once synonymous with saintly compassion, has in recent decades become the subject of intense scrutiny. Critics, most notably Christopher Hitchens in Hell’s Angel (1994) and The Missionary Position (1995), accuse her of mismanaging funds, providing substandard medical care, and glorifying suffering rather than alleviating it. The weight of these allegations, amplified by modern media, has shaped public perception, leading some to question the integrity of her mission.
Yet, a closer examination reveals a more complex reality. While Mother Teresa was not without flaws, reducing her entire legacy to a list of accusations risks overlooking the profound impact she and her community have had on millions. The Missionaries of Charity continue their work in some of the world's most destitute areas, often without fanfare, and in conditions few would endure.
This article is not written out of blind admiration but rather out of a commitment to truth. How much of the criticism holds up to scrutiny? And does it justify the skepticism that now surrounds her name? In exploring these questions, we also acknowledge the thousands of sisters who carry on her mission today, including those in Vilnius, Lithuania, whose daily work quietly challenges the narrative of mere controversy.
The Nature of Mother Teresa’s Work
A key misunderstanding is the belief that Mother Teresa ran hospitals. The Missionaries of Charity, the order she founded, do not operate hospitals but rather homes for the dying, soup kitchens, dispensaries, orphanages, and centers for the homeless, disabled, and victims of disasters. The distinction is crucial. Hospitals focus on curative treatments, while hospices provide comfort and dignity to those in their final months. As laid out by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, hospice care is for those with terminal illnesses whose doctors believe they have six months or less to live.
When Mother Teresa opened her first hospice in 1952, modern palliative care did not yet exist. The first modern hospice (which included palliative care) was only founded in 1967 by British nurse Cicely Saunders. The term "palliative care" itself was only coined in 1974, and the WHO’s Three-Step Pain Ladder, which standardized pain management, was not introduced until 1986, 34 years after Mother Teresa had already begun her work.
Mother Teresa’s work must be understood in the context of post-independence India, which was suffering from the devastating effects of civil partition, economic collapse, and widespread poverty. Calcutta faced severe economic decline, with major industries shutting down, leading to massive unemployment and homelessness. Many of the dying people she cared for had already been turned away by hospitals.
Former Mother Superior of the Missionaries of Charity, Sister Mary Prema Pierick clarifies on the matter by saying: "Mother never had hospitals; we have homes for those not accepted in the hospital... The attention of the sisters and volunteers is on feeding and bandaging, because so many come with wounds”.
Far from running "medical prisons," Mother Teresa provided care when no one else would. Her mission was never about curing illness but about ensuring the abandoned and dying had dignity, love, and comfort in their final moments. To evaluate her work by today’s standards is an anachronism.
The Conditions in Calcutta
Hitchens’ claim that Mother Teresa’s facilities were unhygienic and prison-like ignores the historical context of post-independence India. Calcutta, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s, faced severe economic hardship, exacerbated by the 1947 partition that left millions displaced. As foreign correspondent Mary Anne Weaver observed, the city had one of the lowest urban living standards in the world, with over 70% of the population living in poverty. Families survived on as little as $34 a month, while 200,000 beggars struggled for sidewalk space alongside 20,000 hand-pulled rickshaws.
Hospitals in the region often refused admission to the destitute, leaving them with nowhere to go. Mother Teresa’s homes provided an alternative: a place where people could receive food, shelter, and dignity. That they were not modern medical institutions is irrelevant; they were never meant to be.
The Painkiller Controversy
A common accusation is that Mother Teresa deliberately withheld painkillers from the dying to make them suffer. This claim originates Hitchens presenting an article by Dr. Robin Fox in The Lancet, where he observed a lack of strong analgesics in her homes. However, Fox also praised the Missionaries of Charity for their open-door policy, hygiene, and compassionate care. He acknowledged that many patients were previously rejected by hospitals.
Fox did not claim that pain relief was deliberately denied—only that strong painkillers were not available. The reasons for this were systemic. The Indian Government had been gradually strengthening it’s opium laws post-Independence (1947), restricting opium from general and quasi-medical use. Starting from the All India Opium Conference 1949, there was rapid suppression of opium from between 1948 and 1951 under the Dangerous Drugs Act (1930) and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (1940). In 1959, the sale of opium was totally prohibited except for scientific/ medical uses. Then the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (1985), heavily restricted the use of opioids, even for medical purposes. Morphine and similar analgesics were scarce, even in hospitals.
Medical professionals responding to Fox’s critique in The Lancet highlighted that pain relief options in India were limited due to a lack of trained doctors and nurses in palliative care, government restrictions on opioid distribution and few available alternatives for pain management.
Far from being sadistic, Mother Teresa and her nuns did what they could with the resources at their disposal. The use of weaker painkillers, such as acetaminophen, disproves the notion that suffering was intentionally prolonged.
The Misinterpretation of Redemptive Suffering
Hitchens frequently cites a quote attributed to Mother Teresa: “I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ.” This, he argues, proves that she glorified suffering. However, Catholic theology on suffering is often misunderstood.
The concept of redemptive suffering holds that pain, when united with Christ’s suffering, can have spiritual merit. However, this does not mean suffering should be sought out or inflicted. The Missionaries of Charity dedicate their lives to alleviating suffering, offering food, shelter, and care to the abandoned. If Mother Teresa believed suffering was to be endured without relief, why did her homes administer any painkillers at all?
Sister Mary Prema Peierick further clarified this matter: “Mother never wanted a person to suffer for suffering’s sake. On the contrary, Mother would do everything to alleviate their suffering.” The idea that she withheld pain relief to intensify suffering is a distortion of her beliefs and work.
The Claim of Hypocrisy in Her Medical Treatment
Another accusation is that while the poor in her care received substandard treatment, Mother Teresa herself sought world-class medical care. This claim does not hold up under scrutiny.
Navin B. Chawla, her biographer and former Chief Election Commissioner of India, recalls that when she fell ill in 1994, she was hospitalized in a public facility in Delhi. Far from seeking elite care, she resisted hospitalization altogether. Doctors were hesitant to treat her due to the fear of being held responsible if she died under their care. Offers for treatment abroad were made by world leaders, but she declined them.
Sunita Kumar, her longtime associate, corroborates this. When doctors from New York and San Diego visited to check on her, it was out of their own volition. She was reluctant to accept medical interventions and only did so when pressured by those around her.
Dr. Patricia Aubanel, who attended to Mother Teresa in her final years, described her as “the worst patient I ever had” because she disliked resting and resisted medical treatment. In one instance, she refused to use a ventilator until persuaded with an appeal to her devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe.
If she were truly a hypocrite who sought luxurious medical treatment, she would not have resisted hospitalization and advanced care as fiercely as she did.
The Reality Behind the Criticism
Hitchens’ criticisms rely on selective evidence and sensationalist interpretations. The broader context, India’s economic struggles, outdated healthcare infrastructure, and government restrictions is ignored. His arguments hinge on applying contemporary Western medical standards to an impoverished, post-colonial city.
Mother Teresa’s work was never about providing high-tech medical care; it was about ensuring that the abandoned and dying were not left alone in the streets. Her homes were not hospitals, nor were they meant to be. She did not seek to make people suffer, nor did she deny them pain relief where it was available. The idea that she lived in hypocrisy is refuted by those who worked closely with her.
In a world where narratives can be shaped by ideology, it is vital to separate fact from fiction. Mother Teresa’s legacy should not be judged by the cynical distortions of her critics but by the countless lives she touched. Her mission, at its essence, was one of love, compassion, and service principles that remain unshaken in the face of criticism.
Founder of "Catholicism Coffee".
