This is a very unfair and academic appraisal of Mother Theresa. You neglect to consider that she was working in India with a Hindu and Muslim population over which she had - especially at first - no influence.
Family planning? I know the catholic stance on this - which I do not agree with - but what is the stance of people in poverty in Hindu slums? To have more children to provide income. This on top of the fact that she began her work in 1950 - when family planning wasn't very advanced in the West, let alone a third world Indian slum.
As a catholic nun dedicated to helping the poor there is no payout, and the point The Atheist made about working for sainthood is at best speculation. No-one can really know her motivations, and is to become heavenly or heaven sent selfish in this case? The struggle she faced is rather flippantly portrayed in my view. She made a difference to people who would have suffered and died horrible deaths.
I visited one of her missions in Mumbai which housed orphan Indian children who most often had some disability or learning difficulty. Hindu families dropped off their newly born children who had serious genetic defects and left them in the care of the Nuns there. Upsetting doesn't come close.
If she was being selfish - I think it an irrelevance thrown up by the trendy attitude to Mother Theresa that grew after her death by people - Germaine Greer was one - who merely concerned themselves with their own prejudice against Catholics and Catholic ethics.
Mother Theresa worked within the constraints of her experience and faith. What she did really goes beyond religion, but is an example to everyone what of self-less altruism can achieve. That's why she is revered across cultures and religions.