In his recent book "The Missionary Position" author Christopher Hitchens argues that Mother Teresa was less than saintly in her associations with the powerful and her funneling of funds from clinics to convents.

According to Hitchens' book Mother Teresa...

• Used her quest for sainthood to become a political opportunist and raise money to spread her aggressive form of Catholicism
  
  
• Took money from donors to establish a teaching hospital and instead funneled the money into the establishment of convents in 150 countries
  
  
• Opposed measures to end poverty and those that would raise the status of women
  
  
• Promoted suffering through her organization Missionaries of Charity in order to further her own financial ends without actually helping those in need
  
  
• Rather than trying to help the poor she encouraged them to endure their lot and continue to suffer
  
  
• Her order’s medical practices seemed inadequate, especially given all the money coming into the organization and resulted in patients being denied painkillers during the final moments of their lives
  
  
• Seemed to have corrupt relationships with Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier and his wife Michele, John-Roger, and former financial executive Charles Keating
  
  
• Accepted donations ($1.25 million) earned through fraudulent investments from Charles Keating (who basically exploited her to ease his conscience)
  
  
• Seems to be primarily interested not in providing medical treatment but in furthering Catholic doctrine and becoming a saint

The Good of Mother Teresa
Many arguments stem from the moral position as to whether or not an action should be considered by the means or by the ends. Should Mother Teresa's hardly disputable good deeds be judged by exactly how they were achieved or by simply the fact that they were? Does the answer to this question vary depending on whether or not the deed was a good or evil one?

Mother Teresa can be given soul responsibility for presence of the Missionaries of Charity in 120 countries, approximately 450 brothers and 5,000 nuns worldwide, operating 600 missions, schools and shelters. Through monetary donations she was able to maintain and grow this mission to previously unknown lengths (Slavicek, Louise (2007). Mother Teresa. New York; Infobase Publishing, pp. 90-91). Had she developed one of the widest reaching volunteer charitable organizations with the main goal of becoming a Saint, does it discount the efforts she made? Does the intent change the impact?

For over fifty years Teresa worked through permission of the Vatican on Missionaries of Charity. Its mission was to care for, in her own words, "the hungry, the naked, the homeless, the crippled, the blind, the lepers, all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared for throughout society, people that have become a burden to the society and are shunned by everyone." From its small beginnings to its now universally known and recognized efforts running orphanages, AIDS hospices and charity centers worldwide. The work this mission does, through Teresa's thoughtful planning and steadfast dedication is caring for refugees, the blind, disabled, aged, alcoholics, the poor and homeless, and victims of floods, epidemics, and famine (Spink, Kathryn (1997). Mother Teresa: A Complete Authorized Biography. New York. HarperCollins, pp.284).

With a small sampling of Mother Teresa's good works can we say she is evil? Can we say the way she went about doing good deeds is evil? And more importantly the fact that she did all of these good deeds on purpose has somehow become an evil is an interesting twist on events and perhaps an accurate one. However, the good she provided still exists with or without mal-intent.