For decades, her image has been untouchable.
A frail woman in a white sari with blue borders.
A soft voice.
A global symbol of compassion.
Mother Teresa was celebrated as one of the most selfless figures of the 20th century. Politicians praised her. Celebrities donated millions. The world watched as she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and later canonized as a saint.
But history, when examined closely, is rarely as simple as the stories we tell children.
Behind the carefully preserved image exists another narrative—one pieced together from doctors’ testimonies, journalists’ investigations, former volunteers’ accounts, and her own recorded words. It is a story not of evil intent, but of beliefs so rigid that they shaped practices many now view as deeply troubling.
This is that story.
A Mission Born in Faith, Not Medicine
Mother Teresa founded the Missionaries of Charity in 1950 in Calcutta (now Kolkata), India. The mission’s purpose was clear: to care for “the poorest of the poor.”
Her homes took in people dying on the streets—those with tuberculosis, advanced infections, untreated wounds, and terminal illnesses. For many, these shelters were the only place where they would not die alone.
Supporters argue this alone was a moral victory.
Critics argue something else entirely.
“Suffering Brings You Closer to God”
One of the most controversial aspects of Mother Teresa’s philosophy was her view on pain.
In interviews and speeches, she repeatedly expressed the belief that suffering had spiritual value. Pain, she said, could unite a person with Christ’s suffering on the cross. She famously described it as a “kiss from Jesus.”
To believers, this was faith.
To doctors and medical volunteers, it was alarming.
Former workers reported that patients with severe pain were often not given adequate pain relief, even when basic medications were available. Morphine, commonly used in end-of-life care, was rarely administered. Many patients were left to endure intense suffering with minimal intervention.
The question critics ask is simple but uncomfortable:
If the goal was compassion, why was pain allowed to persist when relief was possible?
Inside the Homes: What Volunteers Reported
Over the years, several journalists and former volunteers described conditions inside the Missionaries of Charity facilities that sharply contrasted with the public image.
Reports included:
- Reuse of needles without proper sterilization
- Limited medical diagnosis or treatment
- Overcrowded wards with minimal hygiene standards
- Emphasis on prayer over medical care
British journalist Christopher Hitchens, one of the most vocal critics, described the homes as places where care was deliberately kept basic, even when resources could have improved conditions.
What troubled critics most was not poverty—but choice.
Mother Teresa’s organization received millions of dollars in donations from around the world. Yet facilities remained austere. Modern medical equipment was rarely introduced. Hospitals were sometimes available nearby, but patients were not always transferred.
The question lingered:
Was suffering being relieved—or preserved?
Millions in Donations, Little Transparency
By the 1970s and 1980s, Mother Teresa was one of the most recognizable figures on Earth. Donations poured in from governments, corporations, and wealthy individuals.
However, the Missionaries of Charity did not provide public financial audits. There was no clear accounting of how much money was spent on patient care versus expansion of religious convents.
Critics argued that while Mother Teresa personally lived simply, the organization itself accumulated enormous financial power—without corresponding improvements in medical standards.
Supporters countered that the mission was never meant to be a hospital system.
But critics respond:
Then why accept medical donations and funding at all?
Accepting Money from Controversial Figures
One of the most cited controversies involved Charles Keating, a U.S. businessman later convicted of massive financial fraud that devastated thousands of victims.
Keating donated large sums to Mother Teresa’s organization. After his conviction, prosecutors asked her to return the money so it could be restored to those he had defrauded.
She refused.
To critics, this raised serious ethical concerns. Accepting donations from questionable sources—and declining restitution—seemed to contradict the moral authority she represented.
Quiet Conversions at the End of Life
Another deeply sensitive issue involved religious conversion.
Former volunteers alleged that some dying patients were baptized without fully informed consent, sometimes while unconscious. These baptisms were reportedly recorded as “conversions.”
Defenders argue that spiritual comfort was offered, not forced.
Critics argue that consent—especially at the end of life—is sacred. Without it, even well-intentioned actions cross ethical lines.
Her Views on Women and Reproductive Health
Mother Teresa was outspokenly opposed to abortion, contraception, and even condom use. She promoted abstinence as the only moral solution to poverty and disease.
In regions struggling with overpopulation, maternal mortality, and HIV/AIDS, critics argue these views worsened suffering, particularly for poor women with limited choices.
To supporters, she upheld Church doctrine without compromise.
To critics, ideology was placed above human welfare.
The Path to Sainthood—and the Questions Ignored
In 2016, Mother Teresa was canonized as a saint by the Catholic Church.
The process moved unusually fast.
Medical testimonies critical of her practices were largely excluded from consideration. Investigations focused on her intentions rather than outcomes.
For many, sainthood confirmed what they already believed.
For others, it signaled that certain questions would never be fully examined.
A More Complicated Legacy
It is important to say this clearly:
Mother Teresa did not create suffering.
She worked among people already abandoned by society. Many who entered her homes would have died alone on the streets.
But intention does not erase impact.
Her beliefs shaped a system where suffering was often accepted rather than treated, where faith sometimes replaced medicine, and where enormous influence went largely unquestioned.
She was neither the monster her harshest critics portray—nor the flawless saint of popular imagination.
She was a human being whose faith-driven worldview produced both comfort and harm.
Why This Story Matters Now
In an age of social media saints and viral heroes, Mother Teresa’s story is a warning.
Charity without accountability can become dangerous.
Good intentions without transparency can cause harm.
And questioning revered figures is not disrespect—it is responsibility.
History deserves honesty.
Even when the truth is uncomfortable.
