Mother Teresa was right ,and she is right But You are wrong Justice Markandey Katju! and I am not sure, weather She WILL be right!. You have used abusive language in your face book posting. Expressing arrogance and intolerance , quote your words/
” she is a reactionary semi educated, fundamentalist, fanatic and fraud” 
/unquote .You are free to criticize any body!. Adopting the principles of critical rationality. I am fully agreeing with most of your earlier posts and writings and respect you. But you have disappointed me by cracking irresponsible, idiotic comments about Mother Teresa. Hope still that you will do the introspection with grace. Let us have a reasonable analysis of the basic premises . She lived as Catholic, obeying canons following biblical interpretations. As a Christian she believed that it is her duty to work for the marginalized ! Especially the leprosy patients suffering much and she has done it with dedication and honesty!.Your arguments related to the possible procedure faults in the process of ‘canonization‘ but structurally canonization procedure includes:->
The Advocatus Diaboli (Latin for Devil’s Advocate); one who “argued against the canonization (sainthood) of a candidate in order to uncover any character flaws or misrepresentation evidence favoring canonization.” .
All are in perfect harmony with the religious framework and ‘First principles’ that they adhere to. For religious systems ‘First principles are those given in ‘sacrosanct Holy books’ . What about other systems such as , Selection of Nobel Laureates , Rulers in a democratic system. Posts in Judiciary , Academic governance etc. Recollect your own judgments, its possible internal contradictions with CRPC, law and justice, ethics and morality etc. Our own country is presently ruled by a party grabbed nearly just, 33% of poled votes. In that respect what about the rationale of Democracy itself , even in an ideal situation. Don’t misinterpret my argument!. It is not against Democracy or Jurisprudence. It is understandable as our society, is ‘still in its Infancy’ (Ref:Karl Popper ; Open society and its Enemies .-introduction to 2nd edition ). Now regarding your stand what are the basic principles you are adhering to?. Is it the ‘logic of Science’ rationale of logical positivists, empiricists, or adopting a systematic reductions and simplifications evolved after the great European Enlightenment!
Even though I am not agreeing with Ludwig Wittgenstein or ‘Vienna Circle’ in the most fundamental level , you may agree with them probably. We shall adopt the approach by Hilbert , known as the Hilbert program. Starting point of any meaning full argument or a body of scientific discussion is the ‘First principles’ or axioms. We have to agree mutually on some basic statements, relevant to the topic and context, ensuring, no contradiction within every statement, and between these basic statements as well!. Then mutual agreement with sufficient ‘verisimilitude’, regarding the meaning of words and definitions used, known as Statements by Agreements. Later adopting the first order logic, arrive at conclusions that, we have to AGREE!. Known as Statements by Arguments, with all its accepted meanings. (Interpretations of First principles, deductions and conclusions are also infested with some problems because of circularity and infinite regressions, naturally inherent when searching for meanings of meanings and definitions for definitions! in any language ! Yes I am using the approach of Karl Popper).Let us agree to ignore that for obvious reasons which we can discuss later.
Now first point is that there is no meaning in logical arguments and forced conclusions, between two faiths or different mutations of the same . ‘Rationality’ is also a faith or passion. And we are not expected to do such logical deductions. You can agree to disagree or express your opinions with required grace and tolerance. but you have abused her in your face book postings expressing arrogance and intolerance, as if you have proved, Mother Teresa wrong!. But the premise is not even agreed upon. Means logically we can’t even arrive at strong conclusions, what is possible is some set of conjunctures, matured opinions with tolerance, grace and mutual respect. I am not arguing against meaning full discussions, debates and polemics, I am ready to talk even with ISIS, RSS, Marxists, Logical positivists or Empiricists but regarding the first three I have to keep a safe distance away physically, just to keep my head safe above my neck. Avoiding discussions would be a total negation of advantages offered by developments in communications, Science and Languages. Let me quote Karl Popper
“It is often asserted that discussion is only possible between people who have a common language and accept common basic assumptions. I think that this is a mistake. All that is needed is a readiness to learn from one’s partner in the discussion, which includes a genuine wish to understand what he intends to say. If this readiness is there, the discussion will be the more fruitful the more the partner’s backgrounds differ.” “The Demarcation between Science and Metaphysics.” (Summary, p. 352): 
My humble suggestion is to take the ‘First principles’ of the ‘OTHER’ party for granted and logical arguments can be used to refute or expose the inconsistencies in the First principles, by ‘contradiction’, showing its internal inconsistency with sufficient verisimilitude .This is my ‘Conjecture’ for a tolerant, meaningful discussion with any sort of philosophy or faith! and we can correct our mistakes in style, content and spirit. True liberal democratic philosophy with openness can’t start with axioms, hypothesis or even ‘postulates’ but just ‘conjectures’ having sufficient verisimilitude! As ‘ Induction’ has been ‘dethroned’ from the body of scientific discussion, I was worried about a better procedure for initiating scientific discourse with out ‘axiomatic formulation’. This seems to be a better conjecture for falsification. Appealing for ’empirical falsification’ is a begging to ‘Induction’ as the whole ‘number system’ is based on Induction.
The whole write up evolved after a strong criticism from my friend Dr.Ratheesh who still (seems to be) supporting Justice Katju, Let me express my sincere gratitude for his repeated criticisms, sometimes even not respecting logic as well but I have benefited much as I was able to write the above paragraph in a comprehensive manner.
Kurt Gödel and his ‘Incompleteness Theorems' has given a death blow to the ‘Hilbert program’ . Translating the deduced conclusion to plain English it reads “ rationality doesn’t have a rational basis’ Same is the approach of Karl Popper expressed in different words and in different works. David Hume and Emmanuel Kant  also subscribed to the same view. Joseph Agassi the reputed philosopher of science, now active is also in that tradition of following Karl Popper .
As the basic premise proved wrong, I need not counter the listed allegations!. It would just be a criticism against the ‘chosen ‘Devil’s advocate ‘,who has not done his/her job effectively!..Age old accusation against all advocates; the profession you belong by choice. Just like the biological evolution we can’t dictate trajectory to the evolution of different ideas, faiths and tribal taboos, even to the evolution of civilization!. Let me quote wise and matured words of H.G.Wells from The Outline of History : Being a Plain History of Life and Mankind (1920), quote/
“The last twenty-three centuries of history are like the efforts of some impulsive, hasty immortal to think clearly and live rightly. Blunder follows blunder; promising beginnings end in grotesque disappointments; streams of living water are poisoned by the cup that conveys them to the thirsty lips of mankind. But the hope of men rises again at last after every disaster”.
In that simple analytical reduction, having pedagogical convenience, we can classify two trends
1. Attempt to build a better ‘civilized’ society, with more openness, inclusiveness, pluralism and decentralization.
2. The opposite trend of nourishing closed mind set with ‘noble lies’, trying to arrest the history by nourishing nostalgic rebirth of old tribal taboos and we call it attempt to build closed societies with centralized, top down paradigm.
In such a reduction where do you stand?, with that immortals who taught us to think clearly! or with those who poisoned the ‘streams of living water’. Do you know the role played by ‘Early Christianity’ (or its eastern counterpart the Buddhism)?. which effectively resisted Slavery . My humble opinion is that Plato, Constantine, Hegel, Marxism and fascism with all its different mutations. Manu, Smrithi, Sruthi, Chanekya, Machiavelli ais on one side including RSS in India, ISIS from Middle East and its different variations else where belong to the first category. While, Early Christianity, Stoics from Greece ,Socrates ,Pericles, Charvakas ,especially Brahaspathi , Jaya Rassi Butt  from my own state Kerala, who rejected all authority of knowledge, including Induction and Deduction (as the premise has provided by induction or appeal to revelation and authority of ‘sacrosanct’ texts!) H.G Wells , Karl popper, Joseph Agassi all are friends of ‘open society’.
Please recollect ‘The great philosopher king’ Plato, so many with a prefix ‘Great’ by conventional History writers, then Aristotle, even the Great Socrates, Diogenes, and father of Democracy Pericles (495-429 B.C.) have not considered slaves and women as ‘Human beings’ and they were not considered as part of ‘HiStory’. But I have considered most of them excluding Plato in the right side of human progress!. Knowing that we are all slaves of social thinking prevailing during there respective epochs.! and apart from ‘small bits of difference in knowledge we are all equal in regards to boundless ignorance'[K.P]. Recollect the role of early Christianity in providing the philosophy to emancipate the outcasts. Any student of history knows how slavery was almost finished! Yes I am Spartacus !! Every ‘untouchable’ in India is Spartacus . Those who honestly believe that women, slaves, untouchables and ‘out castes’ , Leprosy patients all are so, because of their wrong doings in their respective previous life, can’t feel any sympathy towards them as it is the ‘Maya’ of the God. Mother Teresa was a true Christian and was different! . Enlightenment in Europe started as a continuation of Reformation!. Let us talk about Indian continent after the cruel annihilation of Buddhist culture and Charvaka philosophy. It was the Christian missionaries and English education ignited the Indian renaissance movement even though, active only for a small interlude during the early first half of the last century. With out the English language, how we both can communicate each other?. So I respect Early Christianity with gratitude!. You are free to argue that primary purpose of European occupation of India has a religious agenda! Use your rationality to understand how Great people like Dr. Babasahib Ambedker, Iyyankali , Kumaragurudevan and Sree Narayana Guru was possible with out the effect of European renaissance and its after effects on Indian society. In your opening statement itself you have ridiculed her words, quote Mother Teresa and your response /
“ We have a home for the dying in Calcutta, where we have picked up more than 36,000 people only from the streets of Calcutta, and out of that 18,000 have died a ‘beautiful death’. They have gone home to God“. Your ‘sarcastic’ reply: “How homeless people have ‘beautiful death’, passes all comprehension “
These two statements are sufficient to prove my point. Can’t you comprehend that she has provided food, shelter, peace, dignity and comfort to them. You can’t comprehend the use of ‘beautiful death’ as its reference is in Catholic theology; according to which those who got canonized as saints enjoy the ‘beatific vision’. Don’t expect Mother Teresa to use verbiage and rhetoric in explaining plain truth with honesty.
Mother Teresa was right in following honestly the Christian tradition and canons . What about you respected Justice Markandey Katju ! Have you done justice to your own chosen ‘First Principles’. Hence you are wrong!. Please post an open apology with grace. Happy to see a wise man like you in a more respectable intellectual position. What about the ‘last sentence‘ from your F.B post referred?. quote/
“Well I am Prepared to do the the same if I am given 10 million dollars “
Is that your price tag?.
as I know that you were a competent and honest Judge at the Supreme Court of India. and intelligent, rational and bold I am expecting a logical reply from you !
I am ready to post an apology if proved wrong! with out any feeling of defeat but with gratitude of getting corrected in the right way .
Prof.Gopalakrishna Panicker E.G email@example.com, mob +919946981882
3.Ref : The Logic of Scientific Discovery ,The Poverty of Historicism ,The Open Society and its Enemies, Conjectures and Refutations ,Objective Knowledge,Unended Quest,The Self and its Brain, The Postscript to The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Volumes I, II & III,Realism and the Aim of Science,The Open Universe,Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics : Major works by Karl Popper .
4.Kurt Godel, 1992. On Formally Undecidable Propositions Of Principia Mathematica And Related Systems, tr. B. Meltzer, with a comprehensive introduction by Richard Braithwaite. Dover reprint of the 1962 Basic Books edition.
5.A Treatise of Human Nature, Hume wrote, “‘Tis evident, that all the sciences have a relation, more or less, to human nature … Even Mathematics, Natural Philosophy, and Natural Religion, are in some measure dependent on the science of Man.” He also wrote that the science of man is the “only solid foundation for the other sciences”
6. നിവേശനത്തെയും(Induction) ,അനുമാനത്തെയും(deduction) , ഭാരതത്തിലെ ചാർവാകകരും , പിന്നീട് എട്ടാം നൂറ്റാണ്ടിൽ കേരളത്തിൽ ജീവിച്ചിരുന്നു എന്ന് കരുതപ്പെടുന്ന ജയരാശി ഭട്ടും നിഷേധിച്ചു.Jayarāśi Bhaṭṭa (dated to ca. 770–830 by Franco 1994), author of the ‘Tattvopaplavasimha’ (tattva-upa.plava-simha “The Lion that Devours All Categories”/”The Upsetting of All Principles” ‘തത്വ ഉപ പാൽവ സിംഹ’ . Every reason to believe that he lived near Kochi Ref:’Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/jayaraasi/. നവോത്ഥാന കാലത്തിന്റെ ഉത്തരഭാഗത്താണ് ഡേവിഡ്ഹും(David Hume 1711-1776), ഇമ്മാനുവൽ കാന്റ് (Immanuel Kant – 22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804-Magnum opus- ‘Crtic of pure reason’ )പ്രശ്നം(Problem of Induction) തിരിച്ചറിഞ്ഞത്,കാൾപോപ്പേർ . നിവേശത്തെ ശാസ്ത്രത്തിന്റെ പടിക്കുപുറത്താക്കി! പറയാൻ കാരണം മലയാളത്തിന് ഒരു സൗകര്യം കിട്ടി ‘അനുമാനം ‘ (==Conjecture) എന്നുമാത്രം പറഞ്ഞാൽ നിഗമനം പോലും അനുമാനത്തിന്റെ പരിധിയിൽ വരും Ref: Conjectures and Refutations-KP
Please read and strongly criticize my other recent posts ->