Christopher Hitchens once again writes about Mother Teresa, with the two-fold agenda (I think) of stirring up controversy while legitimately attempting to de-deify someone who's undeserving of the reputation everyone seems to take for granted (via Matthew Yglesias).

I discovered that she had taken money from rich dictators like the Duvalier gang in Haiti, had been a friend of poverty rather than a friend of the poor, had never given any account of the huge sums of money donated to her, had railed against birth-control in the most overpopulated city on the planet and had been the spokeswoman for the most extreme dogmas of religious fundamentalism.

It's noteworthy that though I've heard many people reflexively balk at Hitchens' criticism of Mother Teresa, I have yet to hear a single reasoned response disputing any of his facts.

She took in millions and millions of dollars over her "career", while the government of India did not require any sort of accounting or tracking of the money. Meanwhile, the "hospitals" in Calcutta remained in the most squalid conditions.

Could it be that it was in Mother Teresa's interest to keep from building expensive, modern hospitals in Calcutta? Instead to have places like this? Granted, she apparently founded this home for dying so that people who were dying in the street would have a place inside to die. But where were all those millions going? For the cots? The point is, we'll never know.

Anyway, I haven't read Hitchens' book on Mother Teresa, so I don't know all the charges he levels at her, though the brief article above touches on a few. I don't necessarily completely trust Hitchens' research or sources.

But I'd damn sure like to hear somebody tell me why he's wrong, with some legitimate sources to back them up.