Dude, accepting (stolen) money from Keating was one of her lesser transgressions of ethical behavior. She courted (metaphoically speaking, of course) dictators and despots. From supporting Indira Ghandi’s suspension of civil liberties in India to hobnobbing with Trujillo in DR, Teresa never met an open purse she didn’t like. One could argue that, despite of the source of the funds, she was doing so out of the desire to ultimately do good with those monies, but in fact the majority of funds were either stockpiled in Swiss banks or funnelled to the Vatican, while the people under her care were encouraged to endure their suffering in pursuit of her idea of Christian worship. She’s quoted as saying “I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.” Her real mission was proselytizing, and that isn’t, IMHO, a charitable or benevolent intent, particularly given her lack of genuine charity.
The Sisters of her Order weren’t treated much better, receiving the bare minimum of necessities to live and substandard medical treatment. Teresa herself, on the other hand, received prime treatment (often pro bono) in her ailing years. While she can’t be accused of living lavishly, she certainly received better care than those whom she was nominally supporting.
Christopher Hitchins (The Missionary Position) and Dr. Aroup Chatterjee (Mother Teresa: The Final Verdict) have both written on the numerous ways that Mother Teresa’s Order and Missionaries of Charity operations differed from the (oft-self-promoted) public image of her as a benevolent matron caring for the ill and indigent. (It should be noted that Hitchins is a professional agitator and self-described “contrarian” whose default position on any issue of interest is to undermine authority.) There are many other critics, but because of her influence both within the Catholic Church and with world leaders past and present, her public image predominates, and she is on route to canonization and sainthood, despite not actually having performed any definable miracles. (Okay, that’s a little weak to non-Christians and those of us who don’t place much credence in any alleged supernatural events, but still…she needs to pass out a few loaves and fishes, or do some slight of hand, or something before she can legitimately be considered a saint, non?)
Even granted that iconic and celebrated heros never live up to their public image in their private lives, Mother Teresa certainly isn’t the benevolent and selfless angel of mercy she is generally considered to be. Her campaign for beautification and sainthood (going back a couple of decades before her death) was as crass as anything you’ll find in politics, and her lack of genuine compassion for the people her order cared for says little to her virtues as a moral human being.