The Economics of Sainthood
Alex Tabarrok spots a paper on the economics of sainthood:
Saint-making has been a major activity of the Catholic Church for centuries. The pace of sanctifications has picked up noticeably in the last several decades under the last two popes, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Our goal is to apply social-science reasoning to understand the Church’s choices on numbers and characteristics of saints, gauged by location and socioeconomic attributes of the persons designated as blessed.
The figure below shows beatifications per year by pope since 1592 (for popes with four or more beatifications).
For all 35 popes, the mean beatification rate was 1.2, the median was 0.45, the minimum was 0 (for several popes), and the maximum was 12.0 for John Paul II (no. 262). As indicated in the figure, the beatification rate was between 0 and 2 until the last two popes—when the rate rose sharply to 12 for John Paul II (1978-2005) and 11 for Benedict XVI (2005-2009). This pattern suggests a marked diminution of standards for beatification, a conjecture that we support later through regression analysis.
The next figure shows canonizations per year since 1592 (by pope for those with four or more canonizations).
For all 35 popes, the mean canonization rate was 0.80, the median was 0.23, the minimum was 0 (for several popes), and the maximum was 6.0 for Benedict XVI. The pattern shown in the figure suggests that John Paul II (at 3 canonizations per year) was only a moderate outlier, whereas Benedict XVI (at 6 per year) was a clearer outlier. However, our subsequent regression analysis suggests a different interpretation, whereby Benedict XVI may have mainly been responding to the dramatic increase in the stock of beatified persons generated by John Paul II.
10 comments
Yes, but population has exploded as well. How would you account for the fact that recent popes have much larger congregations than previous ones? How does such a graph compare when overlaid on a world population graph, or even a Catholic population graph?
The scientific revolution has made it more difficult to detect genuinely miraculous phenomena. This has paradoxically thrown the criteria for miracles wide open as people seek desperately to insert divine meaning into everyday events and coincidences.
I believe Pope John Paull II loosened the requirements for obtaining sainthood, while Pope Benedict XVI tightened the requirements! Either way, all of those sainted are saints!
Ironically the scientific revolution has actually helped the cause for miralces and hence, the overall increase in the number of saints.
In the past the RCC had few means to validly determine that something was a miracle. Lots of antedoteal evidence and word of mouth stories about the dead, so the Church couldn’t delcare them a saint. Now, with the advancement of physics, chemistry, and etc, the Church can debunk those that are not worthy of belief (e.g., stautes crying blood that DNA proves is the owners blood) and prove those that are real.
Since many miracles can now be proven real because the science cannot find another reasonable cause, there are more saints being delcared.
The Church has always tried to be rational when it comes to declaring saints.
@ Pat
I find your notion that there are “real” miracles to be distinguished from the fake ways a little disturbing. If we allow for the existence of miracles, then why look for reasons for this up-tick? We can just say it was a miracle.
If the Church says something is a miracle, that’s enough for me. However, where reason enters the equation, the use of science is not only acceptable but should be wanted. Scientific scrutiny simply strenghens the miralce by proving no natural explanation.
Do I simply take on face value every person who claims the BVM has given them a vision? Do I accept every claim that some televengelist placed hands on someone and healed them as legitimate?
Of course not.
Interesting analysis, but it is presumptuous to expect a constant rate of canonization. If constancy is not observed it does not mean anything is amiss. There are thousands of times more saints in heaven than will ever get canonized. Many no doubt participated in God’s miracles, but were never formally promoted for sainthood or even had their deeds recorded. The fact that recent popes address our human need for holy examples is to their credit without being a discredit to their predecessors who focused on other matters. There’s plenty of holiness out there to recognize. The past century has seen more martyrs than all previous centuries combined. It’s been as good time as any to catch up on recognizing them!
I am grateful to both for the many examples. I can’t wait for them to be sainted as well.
Craig has it right. We need saints more than American idols. One way to get immersed in this subject is to study the lives of the saints — who were real people —- and one could spend a lifetime on this . As for miracles ,I have seen them and confidently believe in them. They really are a part of our existence. TW, M.D.
[...] Economics of stainthood [...]
Leave a Comment