How did Mother Teresa and her supporters respond to Hitchens' criticisms?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Supporters and defenders of Mother Teresa responded to Christopher Hitchens’ criticisms with sharp rebuttals, personal testimony about her charitable work, and publications defending her record; prominent defenders included Catholic League president William Donohue and writers like Simon Leys who accused Hitchens of ignorance or bias [1] [2] [3]. Hitchens’ arguments — that her order promoted suffering, mishandled donations, and cultivated relationships with dictators and criminals — were repeated across critical accounts and sparked documentary and investigative follow-ups that others contested [4] [5] [6].
1. Public rebuttals from Catholic advocates: “He’s overrated”
Conservative Catholic defenders framed Hitchens’ attack as ideological and personal rather than evidentiary; William Donohue of the Catholic League dismissed Hitchens as “totally overrated as a scholar,” published counter-arguments timed with the saint’s canonization, and accused Hitchens of offering unsupported opinion while promoting more positive narratives in his own work [1] [2]. Donohue’s response exemplifies the organized institutional pushback that treated Hitchens’ polemic as jealous or partisan, not a sober critique [2].
2. Intellectual defenses in print: Leys and others question Hitchens’ scholarship
Scholars and critics sympathetic to Mother Teresa, such as Simon Leys, directly challenged Hitchens’ factual assertions and theological reading, calling parts of his book “howlers on elementary aspects of Christianity” and accusing him of “a complete ignorance of the position of the Catholic Church” while also noting his “strong and vehement distaste for Mother Teresa” [1]. Such defenders framed Hitchens as failing to understand either Catholic doctrine or the context of her ministry [1].
3. Ground-level supporters emphasized care and compassion
Multiple defenses focused less on doctrine than on eyewitness and experiential claims: those who worked in hospices, hospitals, or Mother Teresa’s homes argued that critics ignored the practical, daily care provided to the sick and dying and accused reviewers of attacking an icon instead of evaluating the actual work, urging readers to distinguish Hitchens’ polemic tone from on-the-ground service [7]. These supporters sought to re-center the conversation on compassionate care rather than Hitchens’ broader ideological critique [7].
4. Institutional responses — Vatican review and claim of investigation
During her beatification and canonization the Vatican took note of published criticism and interviewed figures such as Hitchens and Aroup Chatterjee; Vatican officials said allegations were investigated by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, indicating the Church formally considered some of the claims raised by Hitchens and others [8]. Available sources do not detail the Vatican’s full findings here beyond stating that such investigations occurred [8].
5. Defenders attacked Hitchens’ methods and documentary collaborations
Supporters highlighted methodological flaws they perceived in Hitchens’ work: critics pointed to the book’s short length and purported lack of scholarly apparatus, and Catholic commentators argued Hitchens relied on polemical collaborators and selective episodes — such as visits to controversial figures — to indict an entire lifetime of service [1] [2]. Hitchens’ alliance with investigative figures like Aroup Chatterjee and the Channel 4 documentary Hell’s Angel drew rebuttals accusing him of amplifying narrow investigations [4] [5].
6. Competing narratives about motives and evidence
Responses reveal two competing frames: Hitchens presented Mother Teresa as a cultish promoter of suffering who allied with tyrants and misused donations [4] [5], while defenders argued his critique was ideologically driven, factually flawed, and disrespectful to the lived testimony of caregivers and beneficiaries [1] [7] [2]. Both sides marshaled anecdotes — Hitchens highlighting meetings with dictators and suspicious donations, supporters highlighting bedside care — leaving readers to judge which evidence they find more persuasive [5] [7].
7. Limits of the public record in these sources
These sources document the existence of vigorous rebuttals but do not provide a single, comprehensive accounting adjudicating every factual dispute: for example, the Vatican’s investigative conclusions are summarized as “investigated” without a full transcript of findings in the available excerpts [8]. Readers should note that the provided material shows contention over interpretation and method as much as over discrete facts [1] [4].
Conclusion: The reaction to Hitchens was polarized and organized — institutional defenders attacked his scholarship and motives, practitioners emphasized direct service, and official channels acknowledged and reviewed the allegations — leaving the debate defined as much by competing narratives as by the original charges [1] [7] [8].