Next week’s double pope canonization extravaganza is creating a lot of
sainthood “buzz” in the air right now.
Therefore, I thought I’d offer some tips for sainthood.
First, Catholic dogma says the Communion of Saints includes official canonized
and beatified saints, anybody in heaven, and all believers on earth. So, if you believe in Jesus, congratulations,
you’re already a saint! You can stop
reading now and go do something more productive.
However, this common, garden-variety sainthood does not land people on
religious trading cards and rarely results in statues being erected in your
honor, or churches, schools, and ritzy vacation spots being named after
you. If you’re going for that
high-profile, high-revenue type of sainthood, then keep reading.
I’ve been plowing through saint records and building a database to
catalog demographic information for well over 10% of the canonized and beatified
folks. If my calculations are correct,
the sampling I’ve done so far yields statistics with a 3.5% margin of error for
projections across the full canonized / beatified population. Good news, some of these statistics are so
skewed, the 3.5% margin of error is kitten’s play.
My advice if you want to be an officially recognized saint:
1. Be male. Based on my sample set, 84% of canonized and
beatified people were male. You might scratch
your head in confusion since 80% of the church’s work is done by women, and
women are over 50% of the world’s population.
This might seem backwards to you.
No, no…I beg of you; don’t let facts, equity and reality confuse you. If you insist on logic and equity, you
probably should stop reading now before you injure your brain or sense of
righteousness. That statistic simply reflects
church hierarchical members’ value system and helps us quantify it. They see men as being over five times more
virtuous and holy than women…end of story.
2. Be a priest, monk, or religious brother. About 60% of all official saints were ordained
or religious males. If we look at only
the male saints…that tiny 84% majority of all saints…the number jumps to around
70% who were ordained or religious. So
if you’re going to be male, be a priest too, to up your odds.
3. Be a bishop. 37% of saints
and 44% of male saints were bishops or abbots.
I know the cynics are probably starting to suspect that the
beatification and canonization process is simply a ruse for apostles to pat themselves
and their own kind on the back…sort of as a self-glorification thing. Again, let’s not get all hung up on
facts.
4. Be pope. Despite many papacies being riddled with
scandals including the criminal behaviors of soon-to-be-canonized John Paul II
in aiding and abetting child rapists, about 1/3 of all popes throughout the
entirety of history have become saints.
To put this in perspective, let’s look at the ratio of saints across the
full sea of Catholics. Since I can’t
find a statistic for the number of Catholics throughout all time, we’ll use the
number for today’s 1.2 billion Catholics, knowing this will yield disproportionately
high ratios.
Using the number of saints
across all history and current number of Catholics, we see that less than one one-thousandth
of a percent of Catholics are canonized or beatified and less than 1/3 of one
one-thousandth of a percent of laypeople are canonized or beatified. This is compared to over 1/3 of popes being
canonized or beatified. The decimal
place simply shifts five positions to the right for popes…a small factor of
100,000. If you thought the statistic for
bishop-saints reflected a mutual-admiration society, then you now realize it is
simply a gentle air-kiss compared to the emphatic bear-hug of self-admiration
amongst the popes.
5. Be Italian or French. About
22% and 17% of saints were from the geographic regions now called Italy and
France respectively. Again, please don’t
be confused by the fact that Italian and French Catholics each represent only about
5% of the Catholic population. If God
evenly distributed saints, Brazil with 16% of the Catholic population would have
16% of the saints instead of the 4 tenths of one percent of saints that it actually
has.
Canonization and beatification are expensive businesses and though
Brazil is swimming in Catholics, the per capita income is about a third and a
quarter of Italy’s and France’s per capita income levels respectively. Brazilians seem to be spending their money on
frivolities like food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare instead of
canonization and beatification…and these skewed priorities really show in their
saint numbers.
The same is true in
Mexico with almost 10% of all Catholics yet less than 1% of Catholic saints, as
well as the Philippines with about 7.5% of Catholics yet less than one tenth of
one percent of saints. You guessed it:
Mexico’s and the Philippines’ per capita incomes are lower than even Brazil’s.
Let's face it; the popes seem to believe it's more difficult to imitate Christ whilst walking and living amongst poor people. No wonder we have so many bishop mansions...two in my diocese...one for the active and emeritus bishops each. They are simply trying to increase their chances for sainthood by fleeing the impoverished.
I know you might be thinking, "...but didn't Jesus walk amongst the poor...matter of fact...wasn't Jesus one of the poor?" Yeah, yeah, yeah...but that guy could walk on water, too. Let's give the bishops a fighting chance and let them live where people can better afford virtuous behavior or at least better afford to pay for creating images of virtuous behavior.
6. Be a Benedictine. Saints from
Benedictine religious orders are outpacing the next most prevalent order at a
six to one ratio.
7. If you insist on being female…which
really craters your chances of sainthood…then for heaven’s sake, do not have
sex, or if you do, be of royal birth. 70% of female saints were nuns or virgins
and only a paltry 5% of saints were females who were neither nuns, virgins, or royalty. This compares to 25% of saints that were
males who were neither ordained, religious or royalty. Again, we have laymen outpacing laywomen at a 5 to 1 ratio in the virtuous category.
But you see, many of those virtuous, holy non-ordained men were soldiers who killed
in the name of Jesus, the Prince of Peace.
Perhaps this is why we have St. Adrian as the patron saint of arms
dealers…who knew we needed a patron saint of arms dealers…. But, I digress. If you’re going to insist on being a
sexually active female, your best chances for canonization might be to carry a
weapon. It worked for Joan of Arc but
then she was burned at the stake as a heretic…and I think maybe she was a
virgin too. Oh, never mind… Let's face it; sexually active women, are pretty much screwed when it comes to vying for sainthood.
Let me paint an even clearer picture as to the value the church hierarchy
ascribes to women and their work via the canonization process. The stats show us the popes believe:
- Men are 5 times more virtuous and holy than any woman
- Men are about 17 times more virtuous than sexually active women
- Popes are over 270,000 times more virtuous and holy than any woman
- Popes are over 860,000 times more virtuous and holy than sexually active women
Hence, we see John Paul II, a man whose criminal neglect enabled the
rape of thousands of children, being canonized next week while Mother Teresa,
who merely imitated Christ by caring for the poorest of the poor, still awaits
canonization. At least Mother Teresa was
an avowed religious woman so her chances of making full sainthood are
exponentially better than those of any mother who actually bore and raised
children.
8. If you can time your death,
try to die on May 1st. There
seem to be over 1.5 times more saints who died on May 1st than who
died on the next most common date for saints’ deaths.
So, I think the optimal saint profile is this: Italian male Benedictine pope (or bishop) who dies on May 1st. It also helps to either have a lot of wealth
or hang-out with wealthy people who can fund your canonization process. Oddly enough, aside from the date of death dimension,
that bears striking resemblance to the people who canonize and beatify people…hmmm. Interesting.
Do you think the list of canonized saints accurately reflects the most
holy and virtuous people in history? Do
you care? Does the heavy skew towards canonizing hierarchy members expose a deep brokenness in them that they feel the need to memorialize their herd in this way? Do we help fuel the
canonization industry? Should we?
Bonus question for the hierarchy: If you are concerned about the societal devaluation of motherhood, should you perhaps be first examining your behaviors towards women and mothers? Do you treat them even as good as secular society does?
A little Easter levity for you. Easter joy this day and always!
A little Easter levity for you. Easter joy this day and always!
Canonization is a political process, pure and simple. Once you realize that you can simply ignore it.
ReplyDeleteLooks like I am the minority.....big time!
ReplyDeleteThis is so well-written and informative. Have you considered submitting it for publication to NCR et.al.? Even the more mainstreamers New Yorker readers would find it interesting.
ReplyDeleteIf you got a notice that your comment was rejected, it is because I was trying to delete the email notifying me of the comment and instead accidentally deleted your comment. I think I successfully re-added your comment though. I only use gmail for notifications associated with this blog so am not very adept at navigating it.
Deletethank You!!!!!
DeleteI lost all belief in the sainthood process when Pius the IX was canonized, by JPII. PIX was the pope who had the soldiers of the Inquisition kidnap the 11 year old Jewish boy who was allegedly baptized Catholic by the household maid, when he was a sick baby and while his parents were shopping. The parents were never allowed to see him again except for one short monitored visit by his father. The boy was reared by the pope in the Vatican, and at age 20 or so, as an ordained priest, publicly condemned his parents and praised the RCC for saving him from the evils of Judaism. This was soon followed by the canonization of the founder of Opus Dei, and now the criminal pope JPII. God help us all!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the feedback. No, I have not considered submitting my writings elsewhere. I just write when I think I am directed to do so by the Spirit. I haven't given much thought to what happens to my stuff after I put it out here. I am very honored that people invest their time to read my meandering thoughts. Thanks for stopping by the site.
ReplyDeleteYour writing is of supreme professional quality. You get to the point quickly; don't overdo the modifiers; and your style's quality can't help but draw the reader along, without any thought of stopping until you conclude your ideas. I've decided to bookmark your blog. Consider going public.
DeleteI'm guessing you don't want to get caught up in the business of submitting writings or managing submitted writings. And I hope you don't get caught up in that either. But you could look into submitting to maybe NCR only and only have to read one set of submission guidelines. Your writings are too good to be read by only those who happen upon your site. I am very spare with bookmarks, but you've got one of mine.
DeleteBased on people's encouragement here and in private emails I sent a note of inquiry to NCR. It will be as it is meant to be. Thanks for the kind words.
DeleteI'll be most interested to learn NCR's response. Much as I love NCR, my guess is that you'll not be invited to blog at their site. They have a kind of "on the one hand, on the other hand" tone to their coverage, and even their most audacious regular contributors are not as pointed as you, Ewe, who never hesitates to say the Emperor has no clothes. I hope I'm wrong about NCR, but regardless, you're a "must read" for me too!
DeleteSince a number of saints are mythical anyway, it hasn't really held a whole lot of meaning for me. There are only a few specific saints whose lives serve as an example and inspiration. Most of the "patron saints" end up making me think about the Roman pantheon.
ReplyDeleteThe other problem is that there are just too many saints . . . the Gilbertian (I think) line that "When everybody's somebody, nobody's anybody" certainly applies here.
ReplyDeleteInteresting comment about mythology...as I was entering data, I would often see a saint by the same name, with the same feast day, but different year of death and usually from a different part of the world. The life bio would sound very similar too. It seemed myth was involved in at least one of the cases. I envisioned someone might have lived by that name, their story spread through word of mouth and like the child's game of "operator" the story morphed with the telling over time. Probably the story traveled to another part of the world and the locals changed details bit by bit until that saint was one of their own. By the way the feast day is typically the date of a saint's death so it is a bizarre coincidence to see so many saints with the same name who happened to die the same day of the year as another saint by the same name.
ReplyDeleteGreat post. Looks like poor Dorothy Day had a better chance at hitting the real lottery rather than the very rigged Catholic Saint lottery.
ReplyDeleteSuper interesting. Thanks for doing this research. Much food for thought. I've always wondered how women can be so devoted to the Catholic Church. To some extent women seem to need to be devalued in order to feel comfortable.
ReplyDeleteCanonization is much like the Congressional Medal of Honor. You have to do something heroic. AND you have to have somebody witness your heroic action. A witness that matters in the grand political scheme of things who will write you up for the CMH. Likewise, for canonization, you not only have to do something heroic with regard to faith, but your actions must be witnessed by people that matter. And of course the only people that really matter in this regard are the clerics. I'd guess that the clerics spend most of their lives around other clerics. Not too surprising then that most canonized saints are clerics.
ReplyDeletethe truth is that the Catholic Church does not canonize anybody unless the evidence of holiness of the person comes from the people with whom the person lived.
DeleteTruth is that it takes a lot of money to walk the canonization process.
DeleteWhat about being wealthy? From my daily reflections on the lives of the saints included in a daily e-mailing I receive, it seems that being wealthy really helps. Especially if you insist on being a woman and not being a virgin.
ReplyDeleteHi! I don't know if this post is still active but I am doing a research project on the canonization of extra-religious women v. ordained women in the 14th century and was wondering where you got your numbers for the ratio of women (part 7 of your post). Thanks so much!
ReplyDeleteWho are you? (not your name) You are hilarious. Thanks for the engaging read!
ReplyDeleteWhat a bunch of crock. Those canonised as saints have lived exemplary lives of holiness - unlike the people who criticise and pass damning judgement on them. And to try and bring sexism into it just shows exactly what your motivation truly is - to spread the demonic spirit of discord and disharmony in the church. Instead of focusing on the ratio of exactly how many men and women have become saints, why not simply try to emulate the example of the greatest one of them all: God's blessed mother herself, who submitted herself to his will and never sought to usurp the authority given to Peter as head of the church on earth. It might also be useful if you actually did some REAL research on the lives of ALL the canonised saints - and refreshed your memory on why people who are not married but are sexually active until their death cannot be canonised as saints. Look up the meaning of the word "chastity" as a start. Saints like Augustine and Pelagia (an actress of the 5th century, known for her loose morals and numerous lovers before becoming a nun) who repented their free-loving ways became chaste and lived holy lives. Finally, your skewered way of looking at faith and holiness as some sort of mathematical problem is ridiculous. I pity you for living in such a narrow world where you can't just see the goodness of a person and simply thank God they existed - be they male or female.
ReplyDeleteFacts are facts and statistical trends are statistical trends. You seem threatened by facts and the trends revealed by looking at them. I pity people who fear facts and are threatened by the trends they reveal. You seem to miss the point that married women canonized saints are very rare and immediately assume that a woman who has sex must be unmarried and harp upon that point. What a very strange point. As Catholics we believe in the communion of saints which goes far beyond canonized saints. Sad that you only seem to care about canonized saints. I thank God for any person created regardless of saint or sinner, because I was taught not to judge but to leave that to God. You do not know me but jump to many conclusions about me, independent of facts and criticize me for expressing facts. What an interesting diversion from valuing truth.
DeleteI sense some serious passive aggression within this post...
ReplyDeleteSorry for the delay in responding. "Passive Aggressive" is an indirect resistance or an avoidance of confrontation. I'm not resisting anything, nor am I avoiding confrontation. I am directly calling out Pope John Paul II for what he was, criminally negligent in not protecting children. I am also offering statistically sound analysis of the result of canonization's politically and financially tied processes.
DeleteWell the Virgin Mary alone surpasses in grace, holiness, and perfection ALL the angels and saints combined, so i think she makes up for in Grace what women lack by nature... Be like her
ReplyDeleteSorry for the delay in responding. "..what women lack by nature..." I don't lack by nature anything more than any other person, nor does any other woman. I have no desire to be like Mary. I had children - the normal way vs impregnation by the Holy Spirit. I had multiple children. I was called to be me, not her. We already had Mary. Additional ones are not needed or God would have created them.
DeleteNo doubt that the canonisation process is skewed in favour of some standard 'types'. Against that, many of the good and humble people we know and regard as Saints and, God forbid, we ourselves might have hidden flaws exposed if they were elevated to positions of prominence. It's sad to see the heroic Pope John Paul II described as a criminal and as an abettor of child abuse. Once a person is dead, the laws against slander and libel no longer apply. We must rely on people having a sense of decency and honour.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the delay responding. There are numerous sources of information that show John Paul II clearly was aware of and ignored abuse claims. The most notorious was him ignoring the claims against the founder of the Legion of Christ group. Here is an NPR article that provides some data about JPII's awareness about the abuse. Decency says he should have protected children and seminarians. He didn't. He protected the flow of money and the uber pious...who were molesting children and seminarians. In the case of Fr Maciel, he had fathered children clandestinely in violation of his celibacy vow and abused his own children in addition to others. https://www.npr.org/2020/11/10/933382721/vatican-report-says-pope-john-paul-ii-knew-about-allegations-against-former-card
DeleteThis article is a skewed view of the totality of God. In the notion of little faith, do you think the Lord would allow such atrocity to skew who the One True Church recognizes of 'worthy of greater honor'? How low you must be to degrade even the saints of our your life time. Are you jealous of their virtue and dedication and reliance on God? DO you realize that to slander such heavenly people is a grave matter? From this article, you bring the statistics up to argue the Catholic Church is sexist. What do you hope to accomplish? Jesus himself advises us that we will know the origins of something, whether demonic or heavenly, by the fruits. What good fruits have you brought forth? It is a matter of fact that religious (both men and women) and priests (just men) lead lives more ordered to the one lived by Jesus Christ. Living in abstinence allows you to more deeply imitate Christ. Overall, women live more commonly of this world and are more likely to fall that of this world (have you read the book of Sirach in the bible? if not, it is certainly helpful for you to understand this more). Overall, this is an article that misconstrues the process of canonization and sainthood. The conclusion from this article is made out to be that the skewed number of recognized women saints are an effect of a misogynist hierarchy. This couldn't be further from the truth.
ReplyDeleteAd hominem attacks are not permitted. You make unsubstantiated claims about women, which are in line with misogynistic stereotypes. Thus, you are unlikely to be a good judge of what is or isn’t misogyny. Thank you for investing your time reading my blog and offering your unsubstantiated opinions as feedback to the substantive statistics in the article.
DeleteHello! I would like to ask about your original database. I would like to cite your numbers in one of my dissertations, but I would need to know how did you ensure that your original database was random?
ReplyDeleteSorry for the delay responding. I was in a different location than my laptop for a few months. I thought I still had the spreadsheet I used but I couldn't find it. I used this database: https://www.catholic.org/saints/ I didn't take a random selection from the database, I went through I think the first so many letters of the alphabet. I'll keep looking for the database and if I find it will get you more details. I do recall that I went through more than 10% of the saints in this database.
DeleteWhat an interesting lot of diverse comments. Some highly threatened by the idea that the Catholic Church might not be perfect. It is amusing that some comments seem to suggest women are more likely "to fall" in the world. Anyone notice the gender of the majority of criminals/terrorists/child abusers? There is certainly evidence of bias against women in the Church - take note of the thoughts of St Augustine and St Aquinas on women being misbegotten, and some very degrading comments by other male Fathers of the Church, Catholic and otherwise (e.g. St Jerome). We were heavily influenced by the Roman patriarchal Church of the time of Jesus, in which misogyny was rife and so naturally, some of this influence would have trickled down. The sooner we can recognise this, the quicker we can address this and grow in perfection as a Church. The reality with the canonisation process is that the cause for a saint must be introduced, and this often means people need to be in the public life to be noted for their good works - and so many male clergy and popes get noticed. The list of saints is also highly biased towards whites, again because the system comes from a European standpoint. That makes it a not-so-perfect process, but still of much use and legitimacy. People can identify faults in a system, even if it is the Church, without there being unkind and invalid attacks made on the person. I found this article very useful, to at least have some figures. I had to look for quite a while to get this sort of information. And yes there can be politics in the Church- wasn't there politics when James and John asked for seats next to Jesus? Why would the Church be exempt from such imperfections?
ReplyDeleteNice post thank you Josh
ReplyDeleteHello! A little late here but I love this article. I’m working on an art series about saints that is a critical lens about women in the church. I was wondering if you might give me some resources specifically about work done in the church by women, (I see you mentioned 80% of the work done in the church is done by women, which feels very correct but I’m curious about your sources) as well as the percentage of female saints as compared to male saints. This also feels very correct but I would absolutely love to have the sources you abstained for this information. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteYou should probably know that the TV programme that slandered John Paul II was fined today with half a million zl. by an independent organisation. The programme was not only heavily biased, but - according to the verdict - employed manipulation techniques in order to cast false aspersions on the Pontiff.
ReplyDeleteThat such accusations are politically motivated should be obvious to everyone who understand how Conservatism works.
"Based on my sample set, 84% of canonized and beatified people were male [....] They see men as being over five times more virtuous and holy than women"
ReplyDeleteI get that it's a light-hearted post, but I suppose not everyone will see that this reasoning is completely fallacious.
Let's say that out of the 10 tallest people living on my street, 9 are male.
Would you conclude that males in my neighborhood must be 9 times taller than females?
Except I used a statistically valid sample size
DeleteThe fallacy has got nothing to do with whether the sample is valid or not.
DeleteA statistically valid sample means that the sample set is considered large enough to accommodate any sampling bias such as you suggest. Thus, it isn’t a fallacy
Delete