It is classic Hitchens to examine the unexamined. He says of his endeavor to investigate the life of Mother Teresa that he would rather judge her reputation by her words and actions than to judge the words and actions by her reputation.

It would seem culturally counter intuitive to so much as suggest that Mother Teresa, a Nobel Peace Prize winner for starters, isn't entirely equal to the admiration she received in her lifetime and continues to receive posthumously. Hitchens has an explanation for this. He argues wealthy people living comfortable lives in rich countries want to believe that somewhere out there there is someone who is doing something for the poor.

Mother Teresa was self proclaimed for this role, of course. Hitchens paints a picture of a person so consumed by the conviction that for the poor there is glory in suffering that her whole organization is dedicated to enforcing it. Her clinic in Calcutta is void of appropriate medical equipment, despite the fact that through the numerous donations to her cause she would have amassed the funds to upgrade it.

Essentially, Hitchens says that Mother Teresa is using the poor and the suffering to power her operation, a sort of "poverty in practice". Her aim is not to empower the poor to propel them out of poverty, or even to end their suffering, but rather for them to endure their poverty and suffering, for such is the will of god. All the while preaching the strictest of Catholic doctrine. We know that Jesus devoted his end to suffering, although whether he was a real person or merely a philosophical character is not established. Mother Teresa, then, was dedicated to a reenactment of sorts through the poor in her clinic, who had no power to refuse.

It is a rather different view on the world renowned character, for which Christopher Hitchens unsurprisingly received much criticism. Is it because he is twisting the facts or because we in this world are so unwilling to blemish the image of someone who was supposed to be through and through noble?