Mother Teresa is likely to be a good example as long as you believe she thought she was doing gods work and agree that the details of how she did that are reprehensible.
A relevant quote from there summarizing some of them:
"caring for the sick by glorifying their suffering instead of relieving it, ... her questionable political contacts, her suspicious management of the enormous sums of money she received, and her overly dogmatic views regarding, in particular, abortion, contraception, and divorce".
Her "overly dogmatic views regarding, in particular, abortion, contraception, and divorce" are, I suspect, orthodox Catholic doctrine. As for the rest, critics criticize. She sure wasn't using the money she received to get personally rich. She was working with/caring for people that nobody else was. While less than perfect, I'm not seeing "reprehensible" anywhere in the substance of the criticism.
(Read the "Responses to criticism" section of that article for a decent explanation of why most of the criticism is completely missing the point.)
This is not the main point of the criticism. The issue is that she raised millions in money that was not used for her cause of taking care of suffering people in India. Instead, the bulk of the money was sent to religious causes and to the Vatican.
