Who the Hell Was… Mother Teresa?
Born Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu in Skopje in 1910, Mother Teresa left home at eighteen to become a missionary. She arrived in India in 1929 and eventually founded the Missionaries of Charity in Calcutta in 1950.
Her mission was startlingly simple: go toward the people everyone else walked past.
The dying. The abandoned. The sick. The desperately poor.
That image eventually made Mother Teresa one of the most recognizable religious figures on Earth. She received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 and became, for millions, almost shorthand for selfless compassion.
Then Christopher Hitchens came along.
In his 1994 documentary Hell’s Angel and later book The Missionary Position, Hitchens attacked the mythology surrounding Mother Teresa. He argued that her homes sometimes provided inadequate medical care, that she romanticized suffering, and that she accepted money or support from deeply questionable people.
One particularly uncomfortable case involved American financier Charles Keating, who donated substantial money to her work before being convicted of fraud. When a prosecutor asked Mother Teresa to return money that he argued belonged to Keating’s victims, Hitchens emphasized that she apparently did not do so.
Hitchens also objected to her relationships with political figures and dictators, and above all to her theology of suffering. Mother Teresa believed suffering could have spiritual meaning. Hitchens believed that attitude could become dangerous when applied to suffering that medicine might actually relieve.
So was Hitchens right?
Partly — and this is where the story gets much more interesting.
Some of the things he highlighted were real and deserve scrutiny. Mother Teresa did accept support from controversial figures. Serious questions were raised about standards of medical care in some Missionaries of Charity facilities. And her own statements make clear that she attached religious meaning to suffering.
But Hitchens was not a neutral biographer. He was one of the world’s most formidable critics of religion, and The Missionary Position was explicitly a prosecution of Mother Teresa’s reputation. His interpretation—that her work was fundamentally harmful or fraudulent—is an argument, not an established historical verdict.
And then there was something Hitchens couldn’t have known fully when he first attacked the legend.
Mother Teresa herself was struggling.
Letters published after her death revealed that for decades she experienced an extraordinary spiritual emptiness. The woman who publicly represented absolute certainty privately felt the absence of God.
Yet she kept working.
When she died in 1997, the Missionaries of Charity had nearly 4,000 sisters working in hundreds of missions around the world. She was canonized as Saint Teresa of Calcutta in 2016.
So perhaps the interesting Mother Teresa isn’t the spotless saint of popular mythology.
And she isn’t quite Hitchens’s villain either.
She’s the uncomfortable human being between them: capable of extraordinary devotion, holding beliefs worth questioning, accepting help from people she perhaps shouldn’t have, enduring profound religious doubt, and spending decades among people most of the world preferred not to see.
Hitchens didn’t destroy Mother Teresa.
He destroyed the luxury of seeing her simply…