Saints Marching In, 1590-2012*
Robert J. Barro and Rachel M. McCleary
Harvard University
January 2016
Abstract
The Catholic Church has been making saints for centuries in the two-stage process of
beatification and canonization. We analyze determinants of numbers beatified and canonized
(non-martyrs) since 1590 across seven world regions. The number beatified is roughly
proportional to a pope’s tenure and a region’s Catholic population, responds positively since the
early 20th century to Catholic-Protestant competition and to secularization, and falls after the
virtual ending of warfare between European Catholics and Protestants with the Peace of
Westphalia in 1648. There is bias in favor of Italy, then Other Western Europe and Eastern
Europe, and against Africa, Asia, Latin America, and North America. The number canonized
rises with the stock of beatifieds not yet canonized, rises with Catholic-Protestant competition,
and is lower after the Peace of Westphalia. Regional bias is minor for canonization, given
stocks of beatifieds. The last two popes before Francis, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, are large
positive outliers in numbers beatified, and John Paul II is also an outlier for numbers canonized.
*This research was supported by the Paul M. Warburg Fund at Harvard University. We
benefited from comments from Marios Angeletos, Davide Cantoni, Gary Chamberlain,
Lawrence Cripe, Edward Glaeser, Caroline Hoxby, Emi Nakamura, Emily Oster, Ricardo PérezTruglia, Thomas J. Reese, S.J., Rodney Stark, José Ursúa, and Gina Zurlo. Alex McQuoid
helped with data on blessed persons through 2005. Todd Johnson assisted with data on religious
adherence as well as providing comments. We appreciate early input from Bradley Ruffle on the
design of the data set.
Some years ago, we went to Antigua, the colonial capital of Guatemala, and visited the
tomb of Santo Hermano Pedro, Central America’s first saint. Crowds of people milled in the
courtyard of San Francisco Church, where his sanctuary is located, purchasing candles, effigies,
flowers, and crucifixes. A line of visitors curved down a cement ramp to the tomb’s entrance.
Once inside, pilgrims approached the stately wood and iron casket on their knees, prayed, placed
flowers, and tied onto the metal grill wax effigies of body parts for which they were seeking a
miracle cure. Before leaving, supplicants knocked on Hermano Pedro’s tomb to ensure that he
had heard their prayers.
Hermano Pedro was born in 1626 and left his native Canary Islands to avoid entering into
an arranged marriage. He made his way to Guatemala, where he became a member of the Third
Order of Saint Francis and worked among the ill, lame, prisoners, and orphaned children. In
Antigua, he established a hospital, homeless shelter, and school. Later, he founded a new order,
the Bethlehemite Congregation, dedicated to overseeing the institutions he had founded for the
indigent. Pope John Paul II beatified Hermano Pedro in 1980 and named him a saint in 2002.
During our visit to Hermano Pedro’s tomb, we were struck by the devotion engendered
by Central America’s first saint. In a country dominated by the growth of evangelical and
Pentecostal denominations as well as neo-Pentecostal megachurches, the level of activity at San
Francisco Church surrounding Hermano Pedro was remarkable.
Guatemala has seen rapid growth in Protestantism, particularly Pentecostalism, at the
expense of Catholicism. In canonizing Hermano Pedro, was the Catholic Church attempting to
raise the enthusiasm of its followers and thereby compete against the growing Protestant threat?
This question led us to ask more generally whether the Catholic Church has been using saint
making as a way to compete against Protestantism in other countries.
To answer this question, we began by constructing a data set on Catholic saints from
1588 to 2012. To preview our results, we found that saint making has played a role in CatholicProtestant competition particularly since the early 1900s and especially in traditionally Catholic
Latin America. In addition, we found that the Church has been using sainthood to deter
secularism, which we measure by adherence to no religion. This mechanism has been especially
important in Western Europe, where adherence to no religion has soared.
Part of the historical record on saint making is the unprecedented pace of beatification
and canonization under Pope Francis’s immediate predecessors, Benedict XVI (2005-2013) and
John Paul II (1978-2005). Another feature of the data is the shift since the early 1900s away
from an almost exclusive focus on blessed persons from Italy and Other Western Europe and
toward Eastern Europe, Latin America, North America, Asia, and Africa.1 To assess these
geographic patterns and the roles of Catholic-Protestant competition and secularization, we
undertake a long-term econometric analysis that seeks to explain the Catholic Church’s choices
of blessed persons over time and across regions.
Our research falls into the growing fields of religion and political economy and the
sociology of religion. For surveys, see Iannaccone (1998), Sherkat and Ellison (1999), and
McCleary and Barro (2006). Our application to saint making stresses the Catholic Church’s
incentives to compete on one side with Protestantism and on another side with secularism (that
is, no religion). These competitive mechanisms fall comfortably into the realm of economic
analysis. The closest related research that we know of is Stark (2003, 2004), Ferrero (2002), and
Pfaff (2013).
1
In describing John Paul II, Cunningham (2005, p. 122) says, “...the pope has a predilection for canonizing saints
from regions other than the traditional geographical locations of Europe or the Middle East where saints have
typically been found. He wants to show—by canonizing people from the Far East, India, Oceania, and so on—that
the possibility of sanctity may be found in all places where the Catholic Church has been planted.”
2
I. A Brief Survey of Saint Making
Our study relies on a long-term data set constructed by Barro, McCleary, and McQuoid
(2011). These data include numbers and characteristics of blessed persons selected by the
Catholic Church.2 The data apply to beatifications (stage one for becoming a saint) and
canonizations (final approval as a saint). The main information in our data set covers the period
since 1588, when official Vatican records began. We also have partial information on
canonizations back to 1234. We focus on blessed persons known as confessors—individuals
who lived a life of virtue but were not put to death for their faith. That is, as discussed later, our
analysis excludes martyrs.3
We now provide a brief history of the selection procedures for blessed persons. For
confessors, beatification requires the posthumous performance of a miracle—one since the 1983
Code of Canon Law reforms, two or more under the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Beatification is
normally required for the second stage, canonization, which features another, post-beatification
miracle (two additional miracles before the 1983 reforms). The data set has information on when
beatification and canonization occurred and, hence, under which pope. Also included are
characteristics of blessed persons, including dates and places of birth and death, gender, urban
versus rural origin, whether ever married, status in the Catholic Church, whether a convert, and
indicators of education and occupation. We gauge the location of a person chosen as blessed by
residence at death—which typically corresponds to the place in which the person’s main
religious work was performed.
2
The main data are from the Catholic Church, Congregatione pro Causis Sanctorum (1999), Burns (1995 and later
years), and McBrien (1995, 2000). Information for recent years comes from the Vatican website. See
www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/saints/index_saints-blesseds_en.html.
3
An earlier list of blessed persons, covering 993 to 1967, was compiled by Delooz (1962). This list includes
martyrs, as well as persons described as blessed but who lacked formal approval by the pope.
3
The first recognized papal canonization occurred in 993 when Pope John XV canonized
Ulric of Augsburg a mere 20 years after Ulric’s death. In contrast, the mean time between death
and canonization since 1590 was 181 years. The process of canonization gradually became
formalized up to the 12th century. In 1234, Pope Gregory IX declared the exclusive authority of
the Holy See to bestow the title of “saint”. However, this decree did not deter bishops from
conferring beatifications, thereby creating a clear distinction between “beatified” and “saint”. 4
Pope Sixtus V (1585-1590) formalized the saint-making process and created the
Congregation of Rites to concentrate decision-making within the Holy See. The Congregation
was assigned authority over canonization, particularly with regard to verifying miracles and
virtues; for the first time the process included medical examiners (Harvey [2007, p. 1256]).
Sixtus V also purged the Calendar of Saints of persons with questionable credentials.5
A long-overdue development in 1917 was the systematic organizing of the “vast and
confusing collection of canonical materials into a single authoritative reference known as a code
...” [Peters (2001, p. xxiii)]. Begun in 1904 under Pope Pius X (1903-1914), this
reorganizational process was promulgated in 1917 by Benedict XV (1914-1922). According to
Peterson (1940, p. 240), “The outstanding event [after the Council of Trent of 1545-1563] was ...
the promulgation of the new Codex Juris Canonici ... by ... Pope Benedict XV. This event in
ecclesiastico-legal science was as a great step forward as had been the compilation of the [canon
law in the 12th century].”6
For our purposes, the Code is important because it lays out the rules for beatification and
canonization. Canon 1999 of the Code stipulates that only the pope has the authority to
4
For a discussion of the evolution of canonization, see Kemp (1945).
The Calendar was first purged during the Council of Trent (1545-63) when nearly half of saints’ feast days were
eliminated (Klauser [1979, pp. 117-152]).
6
Peters (2001) provides an English translation of the Pio-Benedictine Code.
5
4
canonize, whereas the Congregation of Rites is charged with overseeing the process, and that
local ecclesiastical authorities must follow canon law. However, Canons 2038 and 2039
stipulate that the process of naming blessed persons should typically be initiated by local
Catholic authorities.7 Given the significance of this codification of the saint-making process, we
look at whether there was a break in the process of naming blessed persons in the early 20th
century.
In 1969, Pope Paul VI created the Congregation for the Causes of Saints (replacing the
Congregation of Rites) and the Congregation for the Divine Worship. Pope John Paul II
decentralized the process in 1983, while strengthening the Vatican’s ability to review cases by
creating the College of Relators.8 A relator is a high-ranking member of the Roman Curia who
supervises the preparation of materials submitted to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints.
In the current structure, local ecclesiastical authority in the diocese where the blessed
person died oversees the collection of evidentiary materials in the first phase of the beatification
process. After a five-year waiting period following the death of the candidate (much shorter than
the previously required 50 years), a formal petition can be submitted to Rome to open the case
for beatification. Upon Rome’s approval, the local diocese appoints a postulator, who gathers
evidentiary materials—writings by the candidate, testimonials from eyewitnesses, and secondhand accounts. The body of the candidate is exhumed and examined to ensure that the person
existed. When the collection of evidence is complete, the report is sent to Rome to a relator, who
reviews the report and appoints a medical expert to conduct an independent inquiry into the
claimed miracles. The relator oversees the report, which is submitted to the Congregation for the
Causes of Saints, consisting of 25 cardinals and bishops. If the candidate is deemed by the
7
Canon 2101 reaffirms that 50 years must elapse after a person’s death before a petition can be made.
John Paul II also eliminated the “Devil’s Advocate” or “Promoter of the Faith,” who had for centuries assumed the
role of posing objections to proposed blessed persons. See McBrien (2001, p. 45).
8
5
Congregation to have lived a virtuous life according to Catholic theology, the candidate receives
the title “venerable,” the current status of Pope Pius XII (1939-1958). To be beatified, the
candidate must be verified to have performed a miracle. This verification earns the candidate the
title “blessed” as a beatified, the status accorded Pope John Paul II (1978-2005) in 2011. A
second post-beatification miracle must be performed and verified before the candidate can be
canonized as a saint. This process was completed for John Paul II in September 2013, with his
canonization taking place in 2014 (along with that of Pope John XXIII).
Pope Benedict XVI maintained the 1983 reforms, while making minor changes. The act
of beatification can now take place anywhere in the world and, although a pontifical act, does not
require the pope’s presence.9 The large expansion in beatifications by the last two popes—319
by John Paul II and 92 by Benedict XVI—stands out because the cumulative number beatified
(non-martyrs) from 1590 to 2012 is only 674. At the beginning of Pope Francis’s term in 2013,
the stock of beatifieds not yet canonized was 399, by far a record.10
Our study uses econometric methods to analyze determinants of numbers of persons
beatified and canonized by pope and region since 1590. The main analysis uses a seven-way
regional breakdown: Italy, Other Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Latin America, North
America (defined as Canada and the United States), Asia, and Africa. We chose these regions to
allow for cross-sectional variation while avoiding a proliferation of small geographical entities
that had mostly zeroes for persons beatified and canonized. We are particularly interested in
evaluating the hypothesis that, at least in recent decades, the naming of blessed persons is part of
9
For the official description of the process, see
www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/csaints/documents/rc_con_csaints_doc_20070517_sanctorummater_en.html.
10
The breakdown was 176 from Italy, 125 Other Western Europe, 32 Eastern Europe, 32 Latin America, 14 North
America, 13 Asia, and 7 Africa.
6
the competition between the Catholic Church and Protestantism and between Catholicism and no
religion.
We should stress that martyrs are excluded from our definition of blessed persons, whom
we limit to confessors. Since death in the cause of the Church is a prerequisite for martyrdom,
the selection process for martyrs is intrinsically different from that for confessors. Moreover, no
miracle is required to beatify a martyr—the act of martyrdom is understood as itself a miracle of
grace. Aside from these differences, a significant practical complication is that martyrs are often
beatified in large groups. For example, shortly after becoming pope in 2013, Francis canonized
the 813 martyrs of Otranto, who were executed in 1480 following an Ottoman siege of their
southern Italian city. These martyrs had been beatified in 1771.
Our view is that the determinants of choices of martyrs would differ significantly from
those of confessors, whom we are studying. It would be interesting to analyze choices of martyrs
in detail, but this project would require a lot of additional data retrieval, going beyond the scope
of the present study.11
II. The Data Set of Blessed Persons and other Variables
A. Popes, Beatifieds, Saints
Table 1 gives statistics on popes’ terms from Sixtus V (1585-1590) to Benedict XVI
(2005-2013). The sample for our statistical analysis starts after Sixtus V’s major reforms; that is,
with Urban VII (1590-1590). This sample comprises 38 popes from 1590 to 2012.12
Table 1 shows each pope’s ID number, name, start and end year of his term, and tenure in
years (based on the specific day started and ended). For the columns under the heading
11
A possible concern for our analysis is that the existence of martyrs may influence the choices of confessors. For
example, the beatification of the assassinated Archbishop Romero of El Salvador in 2015 might provide a substitute
for a confessor from that country.
12
We attribute any blessed persons named from 2013 onward to Francis, rather than Benedict XVI.
7
“Beatified,” the stock is the cumulative number beatified but not yet canonized at the start of the
pope’s term. The duration is the mean number of years from beatification to the start of the
pope’s term for the stock of beatified. The flow is the number beatified during the pope’s term.
For the columns headed “Canonized,” the stock is the cumulative number canonized at the start
of the pope’s term, and the flow is the number canonized during the term.
We computed beatification rates, defined as the ratio of number beatified to papal tenure.
Figure 1 shows beatifications per year since 1590 for popes with four or more beatifications. For
the 38 popes in our main sample, the mean beatification rate was 1.1, the median was 0.41, the
minimum was 0 (for thirteen popes), and the maximum was 12.0 for John Paul II. As indicated
in the figure, the beatification rate was between 0 and 2 until the last two popes—when the rate
rose sharply to 12.0 for John Paul II (1978-2005) and 11.7 for Benedict XVI (2005-2013). This
pattern suggests a marked diminution of standards for beatification, a conjecture that we support
later through regression analysis.
Figure 2 shows canonizations per year since 1590 for popes with four or more
canonizations. For the 38 popes in our sample, the mean canonization rate was 0.72, the median
was 0.18, the minimum was 0 (for thirteen popes), and the maximum was 5.3 for Benedict XVI.
The pattern in the figure suggests that John Paul II (3.0 canonizations per year) was only a
moderate outlier, whereas Benedict XVI (5.3 per year) was a clearer outlier. However, an
important positive influence on Benedict XVI’s canonization rate is the large stock of beatified
person’s left by John Paul II. Our regression analysis finds that John Paul II was an outlier in
numbers canonized compared to earlier popes but that Benedict XVI was not. The sharp
expansion of beatified stocks can explain Benedict XVI’s large numbers canonized within the
structure applicable to popes prior to John Paul II.
8
One way to accelerate the pace of beatification temporarily is to shorten the time between
death and beatification. Before the 1983 reforms, this interval was restricted to at least 50 years,
although popes occasionally ignored this restriction.13 Over the full sample, 1590 to 2012, the
mean time from death to beatification was 117 years, and the median was 88. Figure 3, for
popes with four or more beatifications, suggests that this lag rose early on—from Paul V
(1605-1621) to Clement XII (1730-1740). However, the lag fell back around the time of Pius XI
(1922-1939) and has since been relatively stable. For John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the means
were 109 and 98 years, respectively, and the medians were 86 and 84, respectively. These values
accord roughly with those prevailing since Pius XI.
For the lag between beatification and canonization, the mean from 1590 to 2012 was 49
years, and the median was 20. Figure 4 indicates that John Paul II was consistent with the
overall experience—a mean of 48 and median of 18. However, Benedict XVI shortened the
lag—to a mean of 19 and median of 14. We interpret Benedict XVI’s shortened lag for
canonization as part of his response to the dramatic increase in number of persons beatified
(relatively recently) by John Paul II.
Figure 5 shows how characteristics of blessed persons changed from 1590 to 2012.14 The
male share of beatifications and canonizations diminished from the 16th to the 19th century, from
70-80% to 50-60%. However, no clear trends apply since 1900. Shares with some formal
schooling were high throughout, averaging around 80%, and have not changed substantially over
time, despite the expansion of formal schooling in the overall population. Similarly, the share
13
From 1590 to 1982, 37 of the 285 beatifications (13%) took place less than 50 years after the blessed person’s
death. From 1983 to 2012, 63 of the 385 beatifications (16%) featured a lag of less than 50 years from the blessed
person’s death. Thus, there was no clear break after 1983.
14
Stark (2004, pp. 51-59) discusses analogous characteristics of saints chosen between 500 and 1500. His analysis—
which includes the period before the formalization of procedures for canonization in 1234—uses a data set that Stark
constructed by using a variety of criteria to filter out many commonly included “saints.”
9
originating from urban areas has averaged nearly 80% and shows no clear trend, despite the
global trend toward urbanization.
Over the full sample (1590-2012), the 670 beatifications broke down, when classified by
residence at death, as 45% Italy, 33% Other Western Europe, 7% Eastern Europe, 8% Latin
America, 4% North America, 3% Asia, and 1.3% Africa. The breakdown was similar for the
286 canonizations: 46% Italy, 34% Other Western Europe, 7% Eastern Europe, 7% Latin
America, 4% North America, 2.4% Asia, and 0.7% Africa. These data reveal the Catholic
Church’s striking “home bias” in choices of blessed persons. Our formal statistical analysis
confirms that these raw patterns hold up after taking account of time-varying Catholic population
by region and changes in Catholic-Protestant competition and secularization. For example, when
considering determinants of numbers beatified over the full sample, a Catholic person in Other
Western Europe counts only about 30% as one from Italy. The weights in other regions
compared to Italy are even smaller—12% for Eastern Europe, 4.4% for Latin America, 5.8% for
North America, 3.2% for Asia, and 2.6% for Africa.
Figures 6 and 7 show changes over time in the regional composition of beatifications and
canonizations. Through the 19th century, blessed persons were overwhelmingly from Italy and
Other Western Europe. In contrast, there has been some globalization of the process in the 20 th
century. From 1939 to 2012, the shares of beatifications were 8% Eastern Europe, 9% Latin
America, 5% North America, 4% Asia, and 2% Africa. Our formal analysis explains part of
these regional shifts from responses to changes in measures of Catholic-Protestant competition
and secularization.
10
B. Population and Religious Adherence
We constructed rough estimates of population by country and year from 1550 to 2012.
Our starting point was McEvedy and Jones (1978), henceforth called MJ, who provide estimates
since 1500 at 100-, 50-, or 25-year intervals for 68 individual countries and 16 broader groups
typically centered on a principal country.15 The constructs account for border changes and
provide estimates of historical population corresponding to borders around 1975. The 84 entities
come close to covering the world. Since we focus our statistical analysis on blessed persons
chosen in seven regions, the aggregation of countries into the 16 broader groupings is not a
problem.
We adjusted the MJ data for 1975 on population in each country or group to match
estimates from the World Bank’s World Development Indicators (WDI). We then used the
available annual data from WDI to cover 1960-2012. Then we interpolated backwards from
1960 to 1550, using as benchmarks the interval data from MJ (adjusted by the multiple applying
to 1975) going back to 1500. In this manner, we estimated total population for each year for
each country or group of countries from 1550 to 2012. We then combined data on countries or
groups within each region to compute estimates of total population by year for our seven
regions.16 These population data are informative for long-term trends even if not for variations
over short intervals before 1900.
15
These groupings are Botswana (including Namibia), Caribbean (5 countries), Central America (7 countries),
Czechoslovakia (Czech Republic and Slovak Republic), East Africa (6 sub-Saharan African countries), Guyana
(including Suriname), Indian sub-continent (comprising Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan), Malaysia (including
Singapore), Nigeria (including 11 other sub-Saharan African countries), Palestine (including Israel), Russia
(including Belarus, Lithuania, and Ukraine), Sahara (4 African countries), Saudi Arabia (including Bahrain, Kuwait,
Qatar, UAE, and Yemen), South-Central Africa (Malawi, Zambia, and Zimbabwe), South-West Africa (6 subSaharan African countries), and Yugoslavia (Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia, and Slovenia).
16
Among possibly ambiguous cases, we defined Western Europe to include Greece; Eastern Europe to include
Cyprus and Russia; Asia to include Australia and other Pacific-area countries; and Latin America to include
Caribbean, Cuba, and Puerto Rico.
11
The blue graph in Figure 8 shows world population for selected years since 1550. This
population reached 6.6 billion in 2009. (For comparison, the number for world population in
2009 from the World Bank’s World Development Indicators is 6.8 billion.) In 2009, 4.0 billion
of the world’s total population was in Asia, 992 million in Africa, 576 million in Latin America,
402 million in Western Europe (including Italy), and 339 million in North America.
Johnson (2010) estimates adherence by country for the major world religions in 1900,
1950, 1970, and 2000. We use the data for Catholic, a broad concept of Protestant (including
Anglicans, independent Christian churches, and “marginal Christians” such as Mormons and
Seventh Day Adventists), and Orthodox. Note that these adherence numbers exclude unaffiliated
Christians. The sum of the three categories gives an estimate of overall affiliated Christians.17
For later purposes, we also use from Johnson (2010) information back to 1900 on adherence
numbers to no religion.
Johnson (2010) estimates Evangelical adherence by country for 1900, 1950, 1970, and
2000. The underlying concept begins with the number of persons affiliated with Evangelical
churches, categorized as Evangelical based on belief structure. Specifically, Evangelicals
believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, one God (in trinity), Jesus as deity, personal salvation
through belief in Christ, the presence of the Holy Spirit in believing Christians, and resurrection
into heaven and damnation for sinners.18 The estimated number of Evangelicals then adds in
persons who self-identify as Evangelical.
17
Double-counting arises because some persons have affiliations to more than one Christian religion. However, the
data in Barrett, Kurian, and Johnson (2001, Table 1-1) for 2000 indicate that doubly-counted religionists are less
than 1% of affiliated Christians (if we assume that all the doubly-counted are Christians). It is possible, however,
that Barrett, Kurian, and Johnson understate dual affiliations, particularly by neglecting continuing affiliations of
“Christians” with indigenous faiths, particularly in Africa and Latin America.
18
See the statement of faith of the National Association of Evangelicals, http://www.nae.net/about-us/statement-offaith, accessed January 25, 2011.
12
Similarly, Johnson (2010) estimates numbers of Pentecostals by country in 1900, 1950,
1970, and 2000 by including persons affiliated with Pentecostal churches and then adding
persons affiliated with non-Pentecostal churches who self-identify as Pentecostal.
Pentecostalism is a form of evangelicalism that came into existence in the United States in 1901
as a schism from the holiness movement (Wacker [2003, p. 6]). This movement emphasizes
personal conversion and a second Holy Spirit experience. Pentecostals (also described as
Renewalists) are a subset of evangelicals in the sense of accepting the evangelical statement of
faith. The belief structure of Pentecostals emphasizes gifts of the Holy Spirit such as speaking in
tongues and divine miracles.19
For years before 1900, we used data from Barrett and Johnson (2001, Table 7-2) to
estimate adherence numbers for Catholic, Protestant (broadly defined), and Orthodox for six
regions: Western Europe (including Italy), Eastern Europe, Latin America, North America,
Asia, and Africa. These data are for 1500, 1650, 1750, 1800, 1850, and 1900.
We assumed that adherence ratios for each country or group after 2000 equaled those in
2000. We estimated adherence ratios from 1900 to 1950, 1950 to 1970, and 1970 to 2000 by
interpolating linearly between the end points. We multiplied the computed adherence ratios by
the estimates of total population for each country or group to estimate adherents to each religion
annually since 1900 for each country or group. Finally, we added up across countries or groups
in each region to estimate adherents to each religion in our seven regions: Italy, Other Western
Europe, Eastern Europe, Latin America, North America, Asia, and Africa.
Before 1900, we interpolated the available adherence ratios for six regions (Western
Europe, Eastern Europe, Latin America, North America, Asia, and Africa) between benchmark
19
See the statements of faith of the Pentecostal Assemblies of God of America, http://www.paga.org/statemen.htm,
accessed January 25, 2011 and The Church of God Full Gospel (Cleveland, TN),
http://www.churchofgod.org/beliefs/bylaws-of-the-church-of-god, accessed January 22, 2016.
13
dates: 1500, 1650, 1750, 1800, 1850, and 1900.20
We then multiplied the adherence ratios by
the population of each region to estimate adherents to Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox
religions for 1550-1900. For Evangelical, we assumed that the ratio of Evangelicals to
Protestants in each region in 1900 applied to all earlier years.21 For Pentecostals, we accepted
the treatment by Johnson (2010), which regards this movement as starting around 1900.
Therefore, the Pentecostal numbers equal zero before 1900.
Figure 9 shows the evolution since 1550 of the world’s affiliated Christian population by
major type. In 2009, the total of 2.16 billion persons broke down into 1.09 billion Catholics,
0.83 billion Protestants (broadly defined), and 0.24 billion Orthodox. The estimated share of
Catholics in the overall Christian population was 56% in 1550 and 50% in 2009. The figure also
shows the number Evangelical, which equaled 238 million in 2009, compared to 88 million in
1950 and 68 million in 1900. Most of these fall into the broad Protestant category. The number
Pentecostal in 2009 was 405 million, having grown dramatically from 9 million in 1950 and 0
in 1900.
Figure 10 shows the breakdown of the world’s Catholic population into regions since
1550. The graph shows the shift over time of Catholic numbers from Western Europe toward
Latin America, Africa, and Asia. In 2009, among an estimated 1.09 billion Catholics worldwide,
the distribution was 43.5% Latin America, 17.5% Western Europe (including Italy), 14.2%
Africa, 12.6% Asia, 6.7% North America, and 5.5% Eastern Europe.
20
For Italy, included with Western Europe in these data, we assumed that the adherence ratios for 1900--nearly
100% Catholic—applied to earlier years. A minor discrepancy is that the compositions of Western and Eastern
Europe used by Barrett and Johnson (2001, Table 7-2) do not correspond precisely to those we used.
21
Evangelicalism might be viewed as having originated with George Whitefield and John Wesley in England and
Jonathan Edwards in the United States; see Noll (2003, Introduction). However, since there were previous aspects
of “evangelicalism” in England, elsewhere in Western Europe, and the United States, we did not set the world
Evangelical number to zero at a date such as 1730. Our procedure generates a world Evangelical population of 17
million in 1800, 94% of which was in Western Europe and North America. In contrast, Barrett and Johnson (2001,
Table 10-2) estimate the world population of Evangelicals in 1800 to be 25 million.
14
Figure 11 shows a comparable diagram for Protestant population. Western Europe was
the main home for Protestants up to the early 1800s, but North America became increasingly
important during the 19th century. In the later part of the 20th century, the dominant places for
Protestants became Asia and Africa, with Latin America also rising in importance. In 2009,
among an estimated 835 million Protestants worldwide, the distribution was 32.7% Africa,
24.7% Asia, 17.6% North America, 12.2% Western Europe (including Italy), 11.4% Latin
America, and 1.5% Eastern Europe. An analogous figure for Orthodox population would show
that Eastern Europe (including Russia) was dominant throughout the period since 1550.
C. Catholic Religious-Competition Measures
We suppose that the Catholic Church is most interested in competing with Protestants (or
possibly other religions) in areas that have substantial representation of both Catholics and
Protestants. Our approach emphasizes contacts between affiliates of the two religions. To gauge
the likelihood of contacts, we constructed for each country the product of the adherence rates for
Catholics and Protestants (multiplied by two). This variable gives the probability that a
randomly selected pair of persons in a country will consist of one Catholic and one Protestant.22
This measure is small when a country’s religion market is nearly monopolized by either
Catholics or Protestants and reaches a peak when the market is evenly divided (for a given total
of Catholics and Protestants). The Catholic-Protestant competition measure is also small when
the religion market is dominated by groups that are neither Catholic nor Protestant (including
persons with no religious affiliation). We constructed analogous measures for likelihood of
22
One perspective is that the encounters associate with potential religious conversions. We imagine that the Catholic
Church undertakes investments—including saint-making—intended to influence conversions toward Catholicism
and away from Protestantism. We assume that, once a Catholic-Protestant encounter occurs, the probabilities of the
three possible outcomes (conversion to Catholic, conversion to Protestant, and no change) do not depend on
adherence shares in the overall population but that more Catholic investment makes Catholic conversion more likely
and Protestant conversion less likely. We also assume that encounters between Catholics and other religions involve
negligible probabilities of conversion. The optimal level of Catholic investment (for given investment by the
Protestant leadership) is then increasing in the competition variable as we specified it.
15
contact and, hence, the extent of competition between Catholics and other Christian groupings:
Evangelical, Pentecostal, and Orthodox.
Since 1900, we construct the competition measures by country and then compute the
regional variables by averaging over countries within each region while weighting each
country’s value by its share of the region’s Catholic population. (Given our subsequent model of
choices of blessed persons, this weighting scheme approximates the correct variable for the
regional analysis.) Before 1900, we lack benchmark numbers for adherence numbers by
country.23 Our computed competition variables rely on the assumption that adherence shares
prior to 1900 equaled their values in 1900. Therefore, the calculations will be increasingly
inaccurate as we move further back in time. Since the subsequent analysis suggests that
Catholic-Protestant competition is important for saint making mainly since the early 20 th century,
the deficiencies in the pre-1900 data may not matter a lot.
Figures 12 and 13 show the changes across regions in Catholic-Protestant competition.
The most important shifts since 1900 in Figure 13 are in Latin America and Africa. For Latin
America, the value starts at 0.03 in 1900, then rises sharply due to the rise of Protestantism,
reaching 0.26 in 2010. Similarly, in Africa, the competition variable is 0.01 in 1900 and 0.23 in
2010. According to our model, these patterns would motivate heightened saint making over time
in Latin America and Africa. In contrast, in Asia and North America, the competition variable is
high throughout, equaling 0.21 and 0.20, respectively, in 1900 and 0.28 and 0.20, respectively, in
2010. Although the average levels of these competition variables are high, the absence of
substantial changes suggests that competitive pressure would not account for major shifts over
time in saint making in Asia and North America.
23
We have estimates at the regional level, but these do not provide good estimates of country-weighted regional
averages of the competition variable.
16
In Figure 12, the average levels of the competition variable for Italy, Other Western
Europe, and Eastern Europe are much smaller than those for the other regions. Most
importantly, the lack of large (absolute) changes in Figure 12 suggests that changing competition
would not have a major impact on saint making in these regions.
D. Secularization (no religion)
As a general matter, secularization refers to a decline in various dimensions of individual
religiosity and in the power of formal religion. Our application of this concept focuses on
individual religiosity and uses a variable—the adherence rate to no religion—that is available for
most countries back to 1900.24 A rise over time in the no-religion share means that a greater
fraction of the population has strayed away from religion. (The reported no-religion shares for
1900 are typically close to zero.) If we multiply the current no-religion fraction of the
population by the Catholic share of the population in 1900, we get an indication of the fraction of
the wayward population that could be (or could have been) swayed to be Catholic.
As an example, in Italy, the no-religion fraction of the population rose from 0.2% in 1900
to 16.5% in 2010. If we multiply the 16.5% by the Catholic adherence fraction in 1900, 99.7%,
we get that roughly 16.5% is the potential share of the population in 2010 that could be targeted
through a campaign to counter secularization. For other countries in Western Europe, the
advance in the no-religion fraction is even stronger—for example, this fraction rose in France
from 0.3% in 1900 to 19.8% in 2010 and in Germany from 0.3% in 1900 to 23.2% in 2010.
However, in many Western European countries, the Catholic adherence share in 1900 is much
smaller than that in Italy; for example, the fraction for Germany is 35.6% (while France is
98.1%). Thus, for Germany, the multiple of the no-religion share in 2010 (19.8%) and the
24
Johnson (2010) has estimates for 1900, 1950, 1970, 2000, 2005, and 2010. We lack good long-term data on
alternative measures, such as attendance at formal religious services or the extent of religious beliefs.
17
Catholic adherence share in 1900 (35.6%) gives 7.0% as the fraction of the population that the
Catholic Church might fruitfully target in 2010 through saint making.
We constructed the secularization variable for each country for each year since 1900 as
the multiple of the no-religion fraction and the Catholic adherence fraction in 1900. Then we
constructed the regional variables, as above for competition, by weighting by the Catholic
population share of each country within a region. Figures 14 and 15 show the time patterns in
this secularization variable across regions since 1900. A prominent pattern in Figure 14 is the
sharp rise over time for Italy and Other Western Europe. We predict that these patterns would
induce increased saint making over time in these regions (or, at least, less of reduction than
would otherwise have occurred). For Eastern Europe, the secularization variable rises strongly
through 1970 and then levels off. In Figure 15, the absolute changes over time in the other
regions are minor compared to those shown in Figure 14.
Comparing Figures 12/13 with Figures 14/15 we see that the competition and
secularization variables behaved very differently across time and regions. The competition
variable should be most important for explaining increased saint making in recent decades in
Latin America and Africa (Figure 13). The secularization variable should be most important for
explaining heightened saint making in recent decades in Italy and the rest of Europe (Figure 12).
An interesting case that is not captured by our overall approach is the United Kingdom.
Because the Catholic share of the U.K. population has not been high (6.3% in 1900 and 9.0% in
2010), our Catholic-Protestant-competition and secularization variables have also not been high
(even though the no-religion share rose from 1.9% in 1900 to 14.2% in 2010). The dominant
adherence in the United Kingdom is to the Anglican Church (Church of England), comprising
64.3% in 1900 and 42.2% in 2010. The Anglican Church derives from King Henry VIII’s ouster
18
of the Catholic Church in 1534, and, in many theological respects, the Anglican Church remains
similar to the Catholic Church. This closeness may explain the beatification of the English
Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801-1890) by Benedict XVI in 2010. A year before Newman’s
beatification, Benedict XVI issued an invitation to discontented Church of England members and
clergy to join the Catholic Church. The Vatican set up a structure whereby Anglicans, including
married priests, could practice Catholicism while maintaining much of their own identity and
liturgy. Moreover, Newman’s beatification occurred at a time of a potentially serious schism in
the Anglican Church over the ordination of female and homosexual priests. Thus, this particular
beatification may reflect a special form of competition—the Catholic Church seeking converts
from Anglicanism.
E. The Peace of Westphalia
Our regression sample for blessed persons begins in 1590 and, thereby, post-dates the
Reformation in 1517 in Germany by Martin Luther, who was followed in Switzerland by Ulrich
Zwingli and John Calvin. Our sample also post-dates the start of the Catholic CounterReformation, which began in the mid 1500s and featured the Council of Trent of 1545-1563.
The Council reaffirmed the validity of sainthood and embraced the saint-making process as part
of the effort to intensify the enthusiasm of the faithful: “The Council of Trent represents the
attitude of the Catholic Church in its juridical understanding. The Catholic Reformation also
understood that the recognition of saints by canonization served as a strong instrument of
evangelization by emphasizing that within the church there existed the means by which people
reached the heights of holiness.” (Cunningham [2005, p. 63].)
Our post-1590 sample begins in this atmosphere, featuring intense Catholic-Protestant
competition that frequently showed up as religious wars, culminating in the Thirty Years’ War
19
from 1618 to 1648. The end of this war with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 was a watershed
for religious warfare in Europe: “The Peace of Westphalia (1648) ended a generation of war and
a century of strife. It was the end, not only of the Thirty Years War, but of religious wars in
general. During the next century and a half the peace of Europe was often broken … but religion
seldom provided the pretext.” (Cragg [1960, p.9].)
A key point is that the Peace of Westphalia likely lessened the extent of CatholicProtestant competition, notably in Europe. We anticipate that this lessened competition implies
diminished pressure for namings of blessed persons. That is, other things equal, the incentives
for beatifications and canonizations will be stronger in the pre-Westphalia part of our sample
(1590-1647) than subsequently.25 In our regression analysis, we look for this effect from a
dummy variable for popes whose terms concluded before the Peace of Westphalia. This variable
takes on the value one for the eight popes who started office between 1590 and 1623, with the
last (Urban VIII) concluding his term in 1644 (Table 1).
III. Framework for the Regression Analysis
We use count-model regressions to assess the determinants of numbers of persons
beatified and canonized over time by pope and region. This framework is appropriate because
the dependent variable—numbers beatified or canonized—must take on non-negative, integer
values.
25
Similarly, we predict that saint-making pressure would be weaker in the pre-Reformation period than afterwards.
However, our sample excludes this period. Pfaff (2013, Table 3) considers effects from saint making on the
probability that cities would shift after the Reformation away from Catholicism (measured by the abolition of the
Catholic mass). He finds in a sample of 145 German-speaking towns that greater saint-making—gauged by the
number of Catholic shrines erected up to 1530—was inversely related to the probability of shifting away from
Catholicism in the period 1523-1545. This finding makes sense because the shift away from Catholicism was based
on local decisions, as were the choices of beatifieds and creations of shrines.
20
The sample comprises 38 popes’ terms, from Urban VII (1590-1590) to Benedict XVI
(2005-2013), as described in Table 1. The main analysis uses seven regions, as noted before:
Italy, Other Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Latin America, North America, Asia, and Africa.
The beatification variable is the number beatified during a pope’s term in each region.26 The
canonization variable is defined analogously. Overall, there are 266 observations each for
numbers beatified and canonized. Table 2, organized by pope, and Table 3, organized by
pope/region, provide statistics on variables used in the regressions.
Let Bij be the number beatified and Cij the number canonized by pope i (=1, …, 38) in
region j (j=1, …, 7). We express the determinants of Bij and Cij as effects from pope-related
variables, Xi, and pope/region-related variables, Zij. The Xi include dummy variables for John
Paul II and Benedict XVI (who are also the only non-Italian popes in our sample), the pope’s
overall years in office, Ti, whether the pope’s term preceded the Peace of Westphalia, and the
pope’s age at the start of his term. The Zij include for the start of pope i’s term the Catholic
population, the stock of persons beatified but not yet canonized, the mean durations in years for
these beatified stocks, the Catholic-Protestant competition variable, and the secularization
variable.
For Bij, our key measure of the pool of candidates for beatification is the regional
population of Catholics. This measure also gauges the primary set of customers for blessed
persons chosen in the region. For Cij, we measure the pool of candidates for canonization by the
regional stock of persons previously beatified but not yet canonized.27
26
We could look at each year within a pope’s term, but the inclusion of time variation for a given pope is unlikely to
add much information.
27
We include in this stock four persons who were canonized since 1588 but reported as having been beatified well
before 1588 (all from Italy). The problem is that the records are often unclear about what constitutes a beatification
in the pre-1588 period.
21
We assume that the expected number beatified by pope i in region j, E(Bij), follows a
standard form for count models:
(1)
E(Bij) = exp[c1∙log(Ti) + c2∙log(CATHPOPij) + c3∙(competition variable) +
c4∙(secularization variable) + regional dummies + dummies for John Paul II and
Benedict XVI + other variables].
The exponential form on the right side guarantees that the expectation of Bij is positive. If Bij is
proportional to pope’s tenure, Ti, then c1=1, which turns out to accord roughly with the data.
Note from Table 1 that Ti varies substantially across popes, from less than 0.1 year for Urban VII
(1590), Leo XI (1605), and John Paul I (1978) to 31.7 for Pius IX (1846-1878) and 26.5 for John
Paul II (1978-2005). If Bij is proportional to the number of candidates and customers in a region,
then c2=1, again roughly in line with the data. If the choice of blessed persons were region
neutral, the right-hand side would include a single constant, and the regional dummies would be
unimportant—our results strongly reject this conjecture. If, given the other right-hand-side
variables, John Paul II and Benedict XVI operated like previous popes, the dummies for these
two popes would be zero—not what we find.
We anticipate that higher values of the Catholic-Protestant competition variable and the
secularization variable in a region will raise the number beatified. Hence, we predict c3>0 and
c4>0 in equation (1). In addition, we investigate other forms of Catholic-Christian competition—
involving Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and Orthodox.
22
One of the other explanatory variables on the right-hand side of equation (1) is the pope’s
age at the start of his term. If older popes try hard to reach a target number of persons beatified
during their terms, then this variable would have a positive coefficient.
Our main analysis uses maximum likelihood in a negative-binominal form to estimate the
coefficients in equation (1). The conclusions for the count-model regressions are similar with a
simpler Poisson specification.28
The form for the expected number canonized by pope i in region j, E(Cij), is analogous:
(2)
E(Cij) = exp[c1∙log(Ti) + c2∙log(BEASTOCKij) + c3∙(competition variable) +
c4∙(secularization variable) + regional dummies + dummies for John Paul II and
Benedict XVI + other variables].
The main difference from equation (1) is that log(BEASTOCKij) replaces log(CATHPOPij),
where BEASTOCKij is the stock of persons previously beatified but not yet canonized in region j
at the start of pope i’s term. Note that regional variations in the beatified stock will already
reflect regional biases given by the regional dummies in equation (1). Therefore, the regional
dummies in equation (2) now reflect only biases conditional on the stock of beatifieds by region.
Not surprisingly, we find much less indication of regional bias in this conditional sense.
Similarly, the dummies for John Paul II and Benedict XVI in equation (2) are conditional on
stocks of beatifieds. We find that, once we control for the sharp expansion of beatifieds under
John Paul II, the dummy variable for Benedict XVI is unimportant for canonization.
The list of other explanatory variables in equation (2) includes the mean duration in years
of the stock of beatifieds in region j at the start of pope i’s term. If popes dislike leaving blessed
28
For discussions of count-model regression, see Cameron and Trivedi (1986) and Wooldridge (2002, Ch. 19).
23
persons waiting too long, then the coefficient on this variable would be positive. However, if
beatified persons have varying and unobserved “quality,” then the estimated coefficient of this
duration variable tends to be biased downward (for usual reasons related to unobserved
heterogeneity).
IV. Regression Results
Statistics for the variables used in the regressions are in Tables 2 and 3. The results from
count-model regressions, using a negative-binomial specification, are in Table 4. The
regressions follow the forms of equations (1) and (2).
A. Beatifications
Consider the results for numbers beatified by pope and region, Bij, in Table 4, column 1.
1. Pope’s Tenure. The estimated coefficient on the log of pope’s tenure is 1.37
(s.e.=0.17), which is significantly positive and just significantly different from one at the 5%
level (p-value=0.033). Thus, the results are roughly consistent with the property that twice as
much time in office leads to twice as many persons beatified, other things equal.
2. Catholic Population. The estimated coefficient on the scale variable for
candidates—the log of Catholic population in a region—is 0.63 (s.e.=0.17), which is
significantly positive and just significantly different from one at the 5% level (p-value=0.033).
Thus, the results are roughly consistent with constant returns to scale with respect to a region’s
Catholic population. The shortfall of the estimated coefficient from one may result from
attenuation bias due to measurement error in Catholic population by region, particularly in the
pre-1900 sample.
24
3. Regional Dummy Variables. The regional dummy variables show substantial bias in
beatification first toward Italy and second toward Europe. Each coefficient should be interpreted
relative to Italy. For example, for Other Western Europe, the point estimate, -1.19 (s.e.=0.20),
means that the expected number beatified compared to Italy is multiplied by 0.30, the
exponential of -1.19. Hence, Western European Catholics count about 30% as much as Italian
Catholics as influences on the expected number beatified. Each of the estimated regionaldummy coefficients is negative and significantly different from zero. The point estimates imply
multiples relative to Italy of 12% for Eastern Europe, 4.4% for Latin America, 5.8% for North
America, 3.2% for Asia, and 2.6% for Africa. Thus, the home bias in the Catholic Church’s
saint making is remarkable.
4. John Paul II and Benedict XVI. The estimated coefficients on the dummy variables
for John Paul II (1978-2005) and Benedict XVI (2005-2013) are each significantly positive—
1.78 (s.e.=0.27) and 1.18 (0.31), respectively. These estimates imply that, compared to earlier
popes, the propensities to beatify are multiplied by 5.9 for John Paul II and 3.3 for Benedict XVI.
The estimated coefficient for John Paul II is just significantly different from that for Benedict
XVI at the 5% level (p-value=0.046). Thus, with respect to beatification, John Paul II is a
positive outlier29 and Benedict XVI is also a positive outlier but by less than John Paul II.
5. Catholic-Protestant Competition. In Table 4, the Catholic-Protestant competition
variable applies only to popes that started in 1900 or later, thereby comprising the last nine popes
(Table 1). The break point of 1900 corresponds roughly to our prior assessment of when
Catholic-Protestant competition became important for saint making (as discussed before) and
29
Our findings on John Paul II are consistent with observations by Cunningham (2005, pp. 121-122): “The prodigal
use of this process [making saints] has been the subject of some wonder and criticism, both in Rome and in other
parts of the church. The criticism comes mainly from those (including some in the Roman curia) who think both
that the process is too hasty and that the multiplication of new saints cheapens the whole notion of those who are in
the canon of the saints.”
25
also turns out to maximize the likelihood for the beatification regression. We discuss later
alternative starting dates for the competition effect. The Catholic-Protestant competition variable
has a significantly positive coefficient, 5.2 (s.e.=1.9). This estimated value implies that a rise in
the competition variable by one standard deviation (0.083 in Table 3) raises the expected number
beatified by 54% (from exponentiation of the product of 5.2 and 0.083). Therefore, the
estimated response to competition with Protestants is quantitatively important.
6. Secularization. The secularization variable also applies only to popes that started in
1900 or later. However, in practice, the value of this variable is close to zero for earlier years if
we assume that the adherence rate for no religion remained close to the small values reported for
1900. Therefore, the results are virtually unchanged if we allow the secularization variable to
apply also to pre-1900 popes. The estimated coefficient on the secularization variable is
significantly positive, 4.6 (s.e.=2.2). This estimated value implies that a rise in the variable by
one standard deviation (0.020 in Table 3) raises the expected number beatified by 10%.
7. Peace of Westphalia. The regressions include the pre-Westphalia dummy variable,
which takes on the value one for popes who ended office up to 1644 (Table 1). In Table 4,
column 1, the estimated coefficient is positive and significantly different from zero, 0.66
(s.e.=0.28). This estimate implies that the numbers beatified before the Peace of Westphalia
were multiplied by 1.9 compared with the later period. Hence, as conjectured, the end of
religious warfare in Europe appears to have diminished rates of beatification.
8. Pope’s Age. The estimated coefficient on pope’s age at the start of his term, 0.034
(s.e.=0.015), is positive as expected and statistically significantly different from zero at the 5%
level. A one-standard-deviation increase in a pope’s starting age (by 7.8 years, as shown in
Table 2) is estimated to raise the number beatified by 30%—but for a given papal tenure. Hence,
26
there is evidence that older popes—typically with lower life expectancy—tend to accelerate the
process of beatification. This result makes sense if popes have target numbers for blessed
persons chosen during their terms.
B. Canonizations
Consider now the results for numbers canonized by pope and region, Cij, in Table 4,
column 2. We highlight the results that differ from those for beatification.
1. Pope’s Tenure. The estimated coefficient on the log of pope’s tenure is 0.76
(s.e.=0.15), which is significantly positive but insignificantly different from one at the 5% level
(p-value=0.12). Thus, as with beatifications, the results are roughly consistent with the property
that twice as much time in office leads to twice as many persons canonized, other things equal.
2. Stock of Beatifieds. An important difference from the specification for beatification
is that the canonization propensity is conditioned on the number of persons already beatified but
not yet canonized. Hence, the beatified stock at the start of each pope’s term now appears
instead of Catholic population as the key scale variable in the regression.30 In Table 4, column 2,
the estimated coefficient on the log of a region’s beatified stock is 0.96 (s.e.=0.19), which is
significantly positive but insignificantly different from one at the 5% level (p-value=0.82).
Hence, the results are consistent with constant returns in the response of number canonized to the
number of candidates as represented by the beatified stock. Note that, in contrast to numbers of
Catholics, the numbers of persons already beatified by region would not be subject to important
30
A minor difficulty concerns the measurement of beatified stocks at the start of the sample, 1590. Our numbers
include only 4 pre-1588 beatifications, corresponding to 4 persons subsequently canonized (all from Italy). There
are also 11 cases of post-1588 canonizations for which no prior beatification was noted in the records (4 Italy, 3
Other Western Europe, and 4 Eastern Europe). We treat these 11 as lacking prior beatification. Thus, in our data,
there is a small probability of being canonized without having previously been beatified. To allow for this
possibility, we adjusted the beatified stocks in 1590 upward slightly (by 0.5 for each region) from 4 for Italy and 0
for the other regions. The value 0.5 was chosen to maximize the likelihood of the canonization regression.
27
measurement error. This difference likely explains why the estimated scale effect is closer to
unity in the regression for numbers canonized as compared to that for numbers beatified.
The regression for canonization also includes the mean duration of the stock of beatifieds
(those previously beatified but not yet canonized) at the start of a pope’s term. 31 The estimated
coefficient, 0.0052 (s.e.=0.0032), is positive but not significantly different from zero at the 5%
level (p-value = 0.11). The point estimate implies that an extra 44 years of mean duration in the
stock of beatifieds at the start of a pope’s term (the standard deviation of this variable in Table 3)
raises the number canonized by 26%. We anticipated a positive effect because popes would
likely find it undesirable to keep candidates for sainthood—who have already been judged
worthy of beatification—waiting too long.
The effect of the duration of the beatified stock on the canonization propensity is
analogous to effects of duration on hazard rates (Kiefer [1988]). Unobserved heterogeneity in
characteristics, in our case the “quality” of candidates for sainthood, can obscure a rising hazard
rate. That is, since low quality candidates likely remain longer in the pool, the estimated
coefficient on duration tends to be biased downward compared to the true effect. Since we do
not observe multiple spells for a given candidate (because successful persons for sainthood never
return to the pool of candidates), it is unclear how to proceed statistically to eliminate the effect
from unobserved quality differences. However, since we do estimate a positive effect from
duration of the beatified stock on canonization propensity, it may be that unobserved quality
differences among beatifieds are not important in the saint-making process. In any event, the
estimated coefficient, 0.0052, of the mean duration variable likely understates the true effect of
duration.
31
The durations were set to zero for cases with zero stocks of beatifieds.
28
3. Regional Dummy Variables. The estimates of the coefficients on the regional
dummy variables in Table 4, column 2, show preferences for Italy (the left-out region) and
Europe, but the effects are quantitatively much smaller than those for beatification. Moreover,
none of the estimated coefficients on regional dummies in the canonization regression are
significantly different from zero at the 5% level, and the hypothesis that the six coefficients are
jointly zero is accepted with a p-value of 0.95. These findings make sense because the regional
biases in the beatification process would already be transmitted to canonization through effects
from beatified stocks, even with no additional biases at the canonization stage.
4. John Paul II and Benedict XVI. In Table 4, column 2, the estimated coefficient on
the dummy variable for John Paul II (1978-2005) is significantly positive, 1.93 (s.e.=0.40),
implying a multiple of 6.9 on numbers canonized compared to earlier popes. However, the
estimated coefficient for Benedict XVI (2005-2013), -0.18 (0.49), differs insignificantly from
zero. The hypothesis of equality for the coefficients on the dummy variables for these two popes
is decisively rejected (p-value=0.000). Hence, there is evidence that John Paul II was a sharp
positive outlier in numbers canonized, given the values of the explanatory variables. However,
there is no indication that Benedict XVI behaved abnormally with regard to canonization
propensity when compared to popes prior to John Paul II, given the values of the explanatory
variables.
The key element in the explanatory variables for Benedict XVI is that John Paul II
dramatically raised the stock of beatifieds left behind. This stock expanded from the 105
available to John Paul II in 1978 to the 344 available to Benedict XVI in 2005 (Table 1). In the
absence of this expansion, the estimated coefficient on the beatified stock in Table 4, column 2,
29
implies that the number canonized by Benedict XVI would have been around 14, rather than the
observed number of 42.32
Although Benedict XVI was not an outlier in numbers canonized, given the large stock of
beatifieds when he entered office, the canonizations tended to be concentrated among persons
beatified relatively recently, notably by John Paul II. This mechanism explains why the average
time between beatification and canonization fell sharply under Benedict XVI, as shown in
Figure 4. In contrast, because John Paul II was able to work off the backlog of persons beatified
long ago by previous popes, the average time between beatification and canonization did not fall
sharply during his tenure.33
5. Other variables. Results for other variables for canonization in Table 4, column 2,
are analogous to those for beatification. Significantly positive effects are found for the CatholicProtestant competition variable, the pre-Westphalia dummy, and the pope’s age at the start of his
term. One difference is that the estimated coefficient on the secularization variable differs
insignificantly from zero.
C. Extensions of the Model
1. Catholic-Protestant competition over time. The regressions for numbers beatified
and canonized in Table 4 use the variables for Catholic-Protestant competition and secularization
effective only for the nine popes starting since 1900; that is, those entering office in 1903, 1914,
1922, 1939, 1958, 1963, 1978, 1978, and 2005 (Table 1). We can extend the analysis by treating
the starting date as a parameter to be estimated along with the other coefficients in the
regression. Using the property that -2∙log(likelihood ratio) is distributed asymptotically as a chi-
32
Pope Francis had a beatified stock of 399 at the start of his term in 2013, and he already canonized 25 persons
through 2015. This beatification rate—over 8 per year—dwarfs those of John Paul II (3.0 per year) and Benedict
XVI (5.3 per year).
33
At the end of 2015, there were 57 candidates remaining who had been beatified before 1978.
30
squared distribution with 1 degree of freedom, the 5% confidence interval for the starting date in
the beatification regression turns out to be between 1878 (sample of 10 popes beginning with
Leo XIII) and 1922 (7 popes beginning with Pius XI). The likelihood is maximized with a
starting date of 1903 (consistent with Table 4, column 1), but the likelihood is very flat for
starting dates between 1903 and 1922. In practice, the main influence on the likelihood is the
Catholic-Protestant competition variable—the secularization variable plays a negligible role
because it remains small in each region throughout the relevant time frame.
If we take an analogous approach for the canonization regression (Table 4, column 2), we
find that the likelihood is maximized at a starting date of 1922 (sample of 7 popes). In this case,
the 5% confidence interval for the starting date is between 1903 (sample of 9 popes) and 1930
(6 popes). Therefore, the assumed starting date of 1900 in Table 4 lies within the 5% confidence
interval for both the beatification and canonization regressions.
The bottom line is that Catholic-Protestant competition was an important force on choices
of blessed persons starting early in the 20th century. The most likely date of onset for significant
effects was in the range of 1903 (Pius X), 1914 (Benedict XV), and1922 (Pius XI). A possible
explanation for the timing is the promulgation of the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law
in 1917, discussed earlier, which laid out the rules for saint making. Another possible element in
the timing is the loss of the Papal States and the pope’s temporal powers between 1860 and 1870,
leading up to the full unification of Italy in 1871. The pope then lived in a political limbo until
the Lateran Pacts of 1929 established the Vatican as an independent city-state and restored the
political sovereignty of the pope.
2. Other forms of Catholic-Christian competition. The results in Table 4 consider
religious competition only in the form of Catholic-Protestant. We also examined analogously
31
constructed competition variables for Catholic-Evangelical, Catholic-Pentecostal, and CatholicOrthodox. We entered these variables one at a time to the equations estimated in columns 1
and 2 of Table 4. In most cases, the estimated coefficient of the new competition variable
differed insignificantly from zero, and the estimated coefficient for Catholic-Protestant
competition did not change substantially from that reported in Table 4, columns 1 and 2.
As an example, for numbers beatified, the estimated coefficient of Catholic-Orthodox
competition is -1.2 (s.e.=7.3), while that for Catholic-Protestant competition is 5.2 (2.0). A
possible interpretation of the weak results for Catholic-Orthodox competition is that the Catholic
and Orthodox Churches—which separated in the Great Schism of 1054—came to an
understanding long ago not to interfere with the relationship of each church to its own members.
From this perspective, it is reasonable that the Catholic Church would not be competing much
for members through saint making with the Orthodox Church. Another point is that the sample
features little within-country contact between Catholic and Orthodox populations—only in
Eastern Europe to a noticeable extent.
For Catholic-Evangelical and Catholic-Pentecostal competition, the only statistically
significant result was the negative estimated coefficient, -7.7 (s.e. = 3.7), for CatholicPentecostal in the equation for beatification. In this case, the coefficient for Catholic-Protestant
competition became 7.1 (2.7), higher than that in Table 4, column 1. These results suggest that
the overall population of Protestants may be better than the sub-sets of Evangelicals or
Pentecostals as gauges of competition with Catholics. A likely explanation is that the data on
Evangelicals and Pentecostals are more prone than those on total Protestants to measurement
error.
32
3. Poisson count model. We redid the count-model regressions from Table 4 using a
Poisson specification instead of the negative binomial. The Poisson form is the special case of
the negative binomial when the shape or variance parameter shown in Table 4 equals zero, so
that the log of this parameter equals minus infinity. We can test the Poisson constraint by
comparing the log likelihood of the fitted Poisson model with that of the negative binomial.
Asymptotically, twice the log of the likelihood ratio is distributed as a chi-squared variable with
one degree of freedom.
For numbers beatified, the Poisson constraint is accepted with a p-value of 0.86. Given
this high p-value, it is unsurprising that the estimated coefficients of the explanatory variables in
the Poisson specification are close to those shown for the negative-binomial model in Table 4,
column 1. For numbers canonized, the Poisson constraint is accepted with a lower p-value,
0.097. In this case, the changes in some of the estimated coefficients are more noticeable; for
example, the coefficient of the dummy variable for John Paul II becomes 1.61 (s.e.=0.27),
compared with 1.91 (0.40) in Table 4, column 2. However, the main results in the Poisson
specification do not differ much from those in the negative-binomial model.
4. Individual effects for France, Germany, and Spain. As discussed before, our main
specification considers the regional breakdown of Italy, Other Western Europe, and 5 other
regions. We can go further to break out individual countries but going too far results in a
proliferation of zeroes. We redid the estimation while breaking out the three Western European
countries with (aside from Italy) the largest Catholic populations—France, Germany, and Spain.
Aside from the coefficients for regions/countries, the results for the beatification regression are
close to those reported in Table 4, column 1.34 The principal change is that the standard errors of
34
For the canonization regression, the regional dummies were less important, and the breaking out of France,
Germany, and Spain has a smaller effect on the results.
33
the coefficients are higher. The main new information is the estimates on coefficients of dummy
variables for the separated countries. The previous estimate for Other Western Europe in
Table 4, column 1, was -1.19 (s.e.=0.20). Now we get -1.42 (0.22) for France, -2.84 (0.60) for
Germany, -0.88 (0.23) for Spain, and -2.13 (0.30) for the rest of Western Europe. (The
hypothesis that these four coefficients are equal is strongly rejected.) Thus, within Western
Europe, the bias compared to Italy is especially strong for Germany, weaker for France, and
weaker still for Spain. The remainder of Western Europe lies between France and Germany.
D. Diminished Standards for Naming Blessed Persons
Our interpretation of the coefficients on the dummy variables for John Paul II and
Benedict XVI in Table 4, column 1, is that the sharp upward movements in beatifications under
these two popes represent diminished standards for declaring persons to be blessed (see n. 29).
This pattern of reduced standards also applies in column 2 to canonizations under John Paul II
but not to those under Benedict XVI.
Another possible indicator of lowered standards is the tendency to beatify previous
popes. The data since 1590 up to the end of Benedict XVI’s term show only two popes
canonized35—Pius V in 1712 (beatified in 1672) and Pius X in 1954 (beatified in 1951). There
were four more beatified36 but not canonized through 2012—Innocent XI in 1956, Pius IX in
2000, John XXIII in 2000, and John Paul II in 2011. Hence, the three recent beatifications of
popes under John Paul II and Benedict XVI is a large number when placed in historical
perspective. Moreover, the rapid elevations of John XXIII and John Paul II to sainthood in 2014
35
The data since 1234 contain one additional canonization of a pope—Celestine V (pope in the one year 1294), who
was canonized in 1313 by Clement V (1305-1314).
36
Our data, based on Catholic Church, Congregatio pro Causis Sanctorum (1999), do not include as beatified two
popes that are commonly described as blessed: Benedict XI (1303-1304) and Urban V (1362-1370).
34
and the ongoing consideration of several other recent popes for beatification—Pius XII, Paul VI,
and John Paul I—are unprecedented.
By its recent canonizations of popes, the Church is reaffirming the universal and unique
role of the pope in Christendom. This approach resembles Pope Pius IX’s plan when he declared
the dogma of the infallibility of the pope in 1870. This dogma was declared the same year that
the Church lost its Papal territories and the pope his temporal power. In asserting the dogma of
papal infallibility, Pius IX successfully appealed to the religious allegiance of Catholics living in
countries with governments opposed to the papacy. Naming popes as saints has a similar effect
of drawing on and strengthening the allegiance of the faithful worldwide, particularly since
popes are already superstars of the Catholic Church. The only drawback to this strategy, if done
excessively, is that the special effects may weaken.
More broadly, the observation that the Catholic Church has diminished its standards for
naming blessed persons does not imply that this policy change has been a mistake. In fact, our
conjecture is that Pope John Paul II and his successors have found an innovative strategy for
intensifying the devotion of Catholics and, thereby, competing more effectively against
Protestantism and no religion. However, despite the anecdote about Guatemala’s saint Hermano
Pedro that began this paper, we have not isolated the effects of saint-making policies on
religiosity. Such an analysis would be important but challenging.
V. Concluding Observations
Our research uses a data set that encompasses numbers and characteristics of blessed
persons (non-martyrs) selected by the 38 popes aside from Francis that started office since 1590.
Our results assess determinants of numbers beatified and canonized over time for seven regions.
35
We found several pieces of evidence consistent with saint making as a competitive
strategy. First, the numbers beatified and canonized since the early 20th century responded
positively to heightened Catholic-Protestant competition. Second, beatification responded
positively to secularization, amounting to competition with no religion. Finally, the numbers
beatified and canonized were significantly higher, other things equal, under popes whose terms
ended before the Peace of Westphalia of 1648. Our interpretation is that the ending of religious
warfare in Europe diminished the incentives of the Catholic Church to compete with
Protestantism via saint making.
We verify that the last two popes are outliers in terms of increased beatification. John
Paul II is also an outlier in canonization, but Benedict XVI’s large numbers canonized can be
explained as a normal response to the dramatic rise in stocks of beatifieds left behind by John
Paul II. Benedict XVI’s working off of these stocks entailed canonizations of many persons
beatified by his predecessor and, therefore, required a sharp reduction in the interval between
beatification and canonization.
Our immediate plan for future research is to apply the framework to the Catholic
Church’s selection of Cardinals. For this purpose, we can use the remarkable data set on
Cardinals constructed over many years by Miranda (2010). This data set gives names and
characteristics, including residence at birth, of the 4260 Cardinals chosen from 492 to 2010.
Thus, these data cover a much longer period and comprise many more designees compared to the
sample of non-martyr blessed persons. We anticipate giving particular attention to the changing
geographical composition of the Cardinals.
Our results suggest that choices of numbers and locations of blessed persons since the
early 20th century reflect the Catholic Church’s desire to invigorate the Catholic faithful and
36
avoid conversions to Protestantism and no religion. We view these findings as constituting a
first-stage analysis in a model where the second stage comprises the responses of religious
intensity and conversion to the Church’s policies. We would particularly like to know whether
the Church has succeeded in using saint making as a strategic device to inspire more intense
religiosity, less conversion to Protestantism, and a reduced propensity to drop religion entirely
(secularization). This analysis will be challenging because the Church’s choices on saints are
endogenous to Protestant inroads and secularization and because religiosity and patterns of
adherence depend on many variables other than saint making.
37
References
Barrett, D.B. and T.M. Johnson (2001). World Christian Trends, AD 30-AD 2200, Pasadena CA,
William Carey Library.
Barrett, D.B., G.T. Kurian, and T.M. Johnson (2001). World Christian Encyclopedia, v.1,
Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Barro, R.J., R.M. McCleary, and A .McQuoid (2011). “The Economics of Sainthood (a
Preliminary Investigation),” Chapter 10 of R.M. McCleary, ed., The Oxford Handbook of
the Economics of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Burns, P., ed. (1995 and later years). Butler’s Lives of the Saints, Collegeville MN, Burns &
Oates, The Liturgical Press.
Cameron, A.C. and P.K. Trivedi (1986). “Econometric Models Based on Count Data:
Comparisons and Applications of Some Estimators and Tests,” Journal of Applied
Econometrics, 1, January, 29-53.
Catholic Church, Congregatione pro Causis Sanctorum (1999). Index ac Status Causarum, 2nd
edition, Vatican City.
Cragg, G.R. (1960). The Age of Reason, 1648-1789, New York, Pelican Books.
Cunningham, L.S. (2005). A Brief History of Saints, Oxford, Blackwell.
Delooz, P. (1962). “Pour une etude sociologique di Canonizzazione della Controriforma,”
Archives de Sociologie des Religions, 13, 17-43.
Ferrero, M. (2002). “Competition for Sainthood and the Millennial Church,” Kyklos, 55,
335-360.
Harvey, J.C. (2007). “The Role of the Physician in Certifying Miracles in the Canonization
Process of the Catholic Church III,” Southern Medical Journal, 100, 12, December,
1255-1258.
Iannaccone, L.R. (1998). “Introduction to the Economics of Religion,” Journal of Economic
Literature, 36, September, 1465-1496.
Johnson, T.M., general editor (2010). World Christian Data Base, available on the Internet at
www.worldchristiandatabase.org through [email protected].
Kemp, E.W. (1945). “Pope Alexander III and the Canonization of Saints: The Alexander Prize
Essay,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, fourth series, 27, 13-28.
38
Kiefer, N.M. (1988). “Economic Duration Data and Hazard Functions,” Journal of Economic
Literature, 26, June, 646-679.
Klauser, T. (1979). A Short History of the Western Liturgy, 2nd edition, Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
McBrien, R.P., ed. (1995). The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, New York, Harper
Collins.
McBrien, R.P. (2000). Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to John Paul II, San
Francisco CA, Harper.
McCleary, R.M. and R.J. Barro (2006). “Religion and Economy,” Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 20, Spring, 49-72.
McEvedy, C. and R. Jones (1978). Atlas of World Population History, New York, Penguin
Books.
Miranda, S. (2010). “The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church,” available on the Internet at
www2.fiu.edu/~mirandas/cardinals.htm.
Noll, M.A. (2003). The Rise of Evangelicalism, Downers Grove IL, InterVarsity Press.
Peters, E.N. (2001). The 1917 or Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law, San Francisco CA,
Ignatius Press.
Peterson, V.A. (1940). “The Development of the Canon Law since 1500 A.D.,” Church History,
9, September, 235-252.
Pfaff, S. (2013). “The True Citizen of the City of God: the Cult of Saints, the Catholic Social
Order, and Urban Reformation in Germany,” Theory and Society, 42, March, 189-218.
Sherkat, D. and C. Ellison (1999). “Recent Developments and Current Controversies in the
Sociology of Religion,” Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 363-394.
Stark, R. (2003). “Upper Class Asceticism: Social Origins of Ascetic Movements and Medieval
Saints,” Review of Religious Research, 45, September, 5-19.
Stark, R. (2004). Exploring the Religious Life, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.
Wacker, G. (2003). Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture, Cambridge MA,
Harvard University Press.
Wooldridge, J.M. (2002). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, Cambridge
MA, MIT Press.
39
Name
ID
Sixtus V
Urban VII
Gregory XIV
Innocent IX
Clement VIII
Leo XI
Paul V
Gregory XV
Urban VIII
Innocent X
Alexander VII
Clement IX
Clement X
Innocent XI
Alexander VIII
Innocent XII
Clement XI
Innocent XIII
Benedict XIII
Clement XII
Benedict XIV
Clement XIII
Clement XIV
Pius VI
Pius VII
Leo XII
Pius VIII
Gregory XVI
Pius IX
Leo XIII
Pius X
Benedict XV
Pius XI
Pius XII
John XXIII
Paul VI
John Paul I
John Paul II
Benedict XVI
Francis
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
Table 1 Popes’ Terms from 1585 to 2013
Start End Tenure
Beatified
Canonized
(years) Stock Duration Flow Stock Flow
1585 1590
5.35
4
98
0
34
1
1590 1590
0.04
4
103
0
35
0
1590 1591
0.87
4
103
0
35
0
1591 1591
0.17
4
104
0
35
0
1592 1605
13.09
4
104
3
35
2
1605 1605
0.07
7
70
0
37
0
1605 1621
15.72
7
70
13
37
2
1621 1623
2.41
20
36
2
39
5
1623 1644
20.99
17
43
8
44
2
1644 1655
10.32
24
40
3
46
0
1655 1667
12.13
27
46
1
46
2
1667 1669
2.47
26
58
1
48
2
1670 1676
6.24
25
59
5
50
5
1676 1689
12.90
25
58
3
55
0
1689 1691
1.32
28
64
1
55
5
1691 1700
9.22
24
60
0
60
0
1700 1721
20.31
24
69
2
60
4
1721 1724
2.83
22
82
0
64
0
1724 1730
5.74
22
85
3
64
9
1730 1740
9.58
16
66
4
73
4
1740 1758
17.69
16
66
8
77
4
1758 1769
10.59
20
66
4
81
6
1769 1774
5.32
18
67
2
87
0
1775 1799
24.53
20
66
19
87
0
1800 1823
23.45
39
52
7
87
4
1823 1829
5.38
41
62
5
92
0
1829 1830
1.67
46
61
0
92
0
1831 1846
15.34
46
62
4
92
5
1846 1878
31.67
45
76
16
97
5
1878 1903
25.42
55
88
23
102
11
1903 1914
11.05
68
80
11
113
4
1914 1922
7.39
75
80
4
117
3
1922 1939
17.02
76
86
30
120
24
1939 1958
19.62
83
82
38
143
30
1958 1963
4.60
92
80
6
173
10
1963 1978
15.14
88
81
33
183
16
1978 1978
0.09
105
75
0
199
0
1978 2005
26.52
105
75
319
199
80
2005 2013
7.87
344
28
92
279
42
2013
--399
30
-321
--
40
Notes to Table 1
Tenure is in years, based on number of days as pope. For Beatified: Stock is the
cumulative number previously beatified, but not yet canonized, at the start of a pope’s term;
Duration is the mean years from beatification to the start of the pope’s term for the stock of
beatified; and Flow is the number beatified during the pope’s term. For Canonized: Stock is the
cumulative number at the start of a pope’s term, and Flow is the number canonized during the
pope’s term. The number 35 for the canonized stock at the end of the term of Sixtus V (in 1590)
is the number canonized between 1234 and 1589. The year 1234 corresponds to the declaration
by Pope Gregory IX that papal approval was required for canonization. However, the
requirements for beatification remained unclear at this time. In 1588, Pope Sixtus V enacted
detailed reforms of procedures for canonization and beatification. However, the Papacy did not
gain complete control of the process until the regime of Urban VIII, who was pope from 1623 to
1644. Of the 286 persons canonized since 1590, the reports on canonizations indicate that 4
were beatified before 1590, and 11 were not noted as previously beatified. The number 4 for the
stock of beatified for Sixtus V reflects the 4 pre-1590 beatifications among persons canonized
since 1590. This treatment assumes that no other persons were “officially” beatified before
1590. Hence, the cumulative number beatified at the start of 2013 in our data is 399 (stock of
beatified as of 2013) + 321 (stock of canonized as of 2013) – 11 (canonized since 1590 without
prior beatification) –35 (stock of canonized in 1590) = 674. Of these, 670 were beatified since
1590.
41
Table 2
Statistics for Popes (N=38)
Variable
Mean
Median
Number of beatifications
17.6
4.0
Number of canonizations
7.5
3.5
Beatifications per year
1.13
0.41
Canonizations per year
0.72
0.18
Stock of beatifieds (start of term)
45.3
25.0
Mean duration of stock of beatifieds
69.8
68.0
(years, start of term)
Stock of canonized (start of term)
87.8
75.0
Tenure of pope (years)
11.0
9.9
Age of pope (years, start of term)
65.5
66.0
s.d.
52.9
14.7
2.61
1.18
57.8
18.3
Max
317
78
12.0
5.33
344
104
Min
0
0
0
0
4
28
56.0
8.7
7.8
279
31.7
80
35
0.04
51
Table 3
Statistics for Regression Sample, Popes/Regions (N=266)
Variable
Mean Median
s.d.
Max
Number of beatifications
2.51
0
10.7
125
Number of canonizations
1.07
0
3.34
34
Catholic population (millions)
27.2
10.5
48.5
452.8
log(Catholic population)
1.59
2.35
2.66
6.12
Stock of beatifieds (start of term)
6.47
1.00
15.07
150
log(stock of beatifieds + 0.4)
0.54
0.34
1.62
5.01
Mean duration of stock of beatifieds
32.7
2.5
43.9
189
(years, start of term)
log(tenure of pope)
1.69
2.30
1.72
3.46
Competition: Catholic/Protestant
0.090
0.079
0.083
0.274
Secularization variable
0.0070
0.0018
0.0204 0.1644
Min
0
0
0.0
-5.22
0
-0.92
0
-3.34
0.004
0.0000
Note: See notes to Table 1 for further discussion. Data are for 38 popes’ terms from Urban VII
(start year 1590) to Benedict XVI (start year 2005). Beatifications (canonizations) per year equal
the number of beatifications (canonizations) during a pope’s term divided by the pope’s tenure in
years. Stock of beatifieds is the cumulative number beatified, but not yet canonized, at the start
of a pope’s term. Duration, applying to the stock of beatifieds at the start of a pope’s term, is the
mean years from beatification to the start of the pope’s term. Stock of canonized is the
cumulative number at the start of a pope’s term. Data in Table 3 are for the regression sample
used in Table 4. The competition and secularization variables are described in Sections II.C
and II.D.
42
Table 4 Negative-Binomial Count Regressions for
Numbers Beatified and Canonized
Beatified
Canonized
Independent variable
(1)
(2)
-6.28**
-8.77**
Constant
(1.32)
(1.59)
1.368**
0.761**
log(tenure of pope
(0.171)
(0.152)
0.633**
-log(Catholic population)
(0.171)
-0.957**
log(beatified stock + 0.5)
(0.190)
-0.0052
Duration of beatified stock
(0.0032)
(years)
-1.19** [.30]
-0.20 [.82]
Other Western Europe
(0.20)
(0.25)
-2.09** [.12]
-0.52 [.59]
Eastern Europe
(0.25)
(0.50)
-3.13** [.044]
-0.42 [.66]
Latin America
(0.33)
(0.62)
-2.85** [.058]
-0.55 [.58]
North America
(0.43)
(0.80)
-3.43** [.032]
-0.82 [.44]
Asia
(0.49)
(0.99)
-3.65** [.026]
-1.08 [.34]
Africa
(0.48)
(1.09)
1.78**
[5.9]
1.93**
[6.9]
John Paul II 1978-2005
(0.27)
(0.40)
1.18** [3.3]
-0.18 [.84]
Benedict XVI 2005-2009
(0.31)
(0.49)
5.2**
5.4*
Competition Catholic(1.9)
(2.3)
Protestant
4.6*
-3.7
Secularization variable
(2.2)
(3.5)
0.66* [1.9]
1.24** [3.5]
pre-Westphalia dummy
(0.28)
(0.45)
0.034*
0.069**
Age of pope, start term
(0.015)
(0.018)
(years)
0.94
0.83
R-squared
-3.33*
-1.97**
log(variance or shape parameter)
(1.48)
(0.69)
43
Notes to Table 4
Observations are by pope for the 38 popes from Urban VII (1590-1590) to Benedict XVI
(2005-2013); see Table 1. The dependent variable in Table 4 is the number beatified in column 1
and the number canonized in column 2. The numbers by pope are for seven regions (based on a
blessed person’s residence at death): Italy, Other Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Latin
America, North America, Asia, and Africa.
The count regressions are estimated by maximum likelihood in a negative-binomial form.
The fitted values from this equation give the log of the expected number of persons beatified or
canonized by each pope in each region. Standard errors of the estimated coefficients are in
parentheses. For the six regional dummies (Italy excluded), the numbers shown in brackets,
computed by exponentiation of the point estimates, correspond to proportionate effects compared
to Italy. For example, in column 1, the number of persons beatified in Other Western Europe
was estimated to be 0.30 that of Italy, for given values of the other explanatory variables. For
the dummies for John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the numbers in brackets correspond to
proportionate effects compared to earlier popes. For the pre-Westphalia dummy (which takes on
the value one for the eight popes who started office between 1590 and 1623), the number in
brackets gives the proportionate effect pre-Westphalia compared with post-Westphalia.
The population, religious-competition, and secularization variables are described in
sections II.B, II.C, and II.D of the text. The competition and secularization variables apply to the
9 popes (aside from Francis) starting since 1900 (Table 1). The stock of beatified persons (not
yet canonized) is discussed in Table 1. The duration of this stock is the mean number of years
from beatification to the start of a pope’s term for persons beatified but not yet canonized in each
region.
*Significant at 0.05 level.
**Significant at 0.01 level.
44
Figure 1
Beatifications per Year
(popes with 4 or more beatifications)
14
JPII
Ben
XVI
12
10
8
6
Pius
XII
4
Pius
XI
2
Paul
VI
John
XXIII
0
233235 239246247248 250251 252254255256257258 259260261262264 265
Pope ID Number
Note: Data are described in Section II.A.
45
Figure 2
Canonizations per Year
(popes with 4 or more canonizations)
6
Ben
XVI
5
4
JPII
3
John
XXIII
Pius
XII
2
Pius
XI
Paul
VI
1
0
234 239 241 243 245 246 247248 251 254 255 256 257 259 260 261 262 264 265
Pope ID Number
Note: Data are described in Section II.A.
46
Figure 3
Years from Death to Beatification
(popes with 4 or more beatifications)
240
200
160
120
Pius
XI
John
XXIII
JPII
80
Paul
VI
40
Pius
XII
0
233 235 239 246 247248 250 251 252 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 264 265
Pope ID Number
yearsdeath to beatification (mean)
yearsdeath to beatification (median)
Note: Data are described in Section II.A.
47
Ben
XVI
Figure 4
Years from Beatification to Canonization
(popes with 4 or more canonizations,
among previously beatified)
120
100
John
XXIII
80
Pius
XI
60
Pius
XII
Paul
VI
JPII
40
Ben
XVI
20
0
234 239 241 243 245 246 247 248 251 254 255 256 257 259 260 261 262 264 265
Pope ID Number
yearsbeatification to canonization (mean)
yearsbeatification to canonization (median)
Note: Data are described in Section II.A.
48
Figure 5: Beatifications and Canonizations:
Fractions Male, Schooled, and Urban since 1590
Beatifications
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1590-1699 1700-99 1800-99
1900-49
1950-79 1980-89
1990-99
2000-12
Canonizations
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1590-1699 1700-99 1800-99 1900-49 1950-79
1980-89 1990-99
2000-12
male fraction
formal schooling fraction
urban fraction
Note: Data are described in Section II.A.
49
Figure 6
Beatifications by Region over Time
200
Total Beatified
Italy
Other Western Europe
Eastern Europe
Latin America
North America
Asia
Africa
160
120
80
40
0
1590
1700
1800
1900
1950
1980
Starting Year for Period
Note: Data are described in Section II.A.
50
1990
2000
Figure 7
Canonizations by Region over Time
90
80
70
60
50
Total Canonized
Italy
Western Europe
Eastern Europe
Latin America
North America
Asia
Africa
40
30
20
10
0
1590
1700
1800
1900
1950
1980
Starting Year for Period
Note: Data are described in Section II.A.
51
1990
2000
Figure 8
Population by Region
7,000
6,000
World Population
Italy
Other Western Europe
Eastern Europe
Latin America
North America
Asia
Africa
millions
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1550
1650
1750
1850
1950
2009
Note: Data, described in section II.B, are based on McEvedy and Jones (1978) and World
Development Indicators.
52
Figure 9
World Christian Population by Type
2,400
2,000
Total Christian affiliated population
Catholic
Protestant (broadly defined)
Evangelical
Pentecostal (by beliefs)
Orthodox
millions
1,600
1,200
800
400
0
1550
1650
1750
1850
1950
2009
Note: Total Christian is the sum of affiliated persons in the categories of Catholic, Protestant
(broadly defined to include Anglicans, independent Christian churches, and marginal Christians
such as Mormons and 7th-Day Adventists), and Orthodox. Most Evangelicals (affiliated with
Evangelical churches) fall into the Protestant category. Pentecostals are defined by belief
structure, rather than affiliation and are mostly a subset of Evangelicals. Data, described in
section II.B, apply religious-adherence shares from Johnson (2010) and Barrett and Johnson
(2001) to population data described in Figure 8. Before 1900, the ratio of Evangelical to
Protestant population in each region was assumed to equal the ratio for 1900. Pentecostal
numbers equal zero before 1900.
53
Figure 10
Catholic Population by Region
1,200
1,000
World Catholic Population
Italy
Other Western Europe
Eastern Europe
Latin America
North America
Asia
Africa
millions
800
600
400
200
0
1550
1650
1750
1850
1950
2009
Note: Data, described in section II.B, apply religious-adherence shares from Johnson (2010) and
Barrett and Johnson (2001) to population data described in Figure 8.
54
Figure 11
Protestant Population by Region
900
800
World Protestant Population
Italy
Other Western Europe
Eastern Europe
Latin America
North America
Asia
Africa
700
millions
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1550
1650
1750
1850
1950
2009
Note: Data, described in section II.B, apply religious-adherence shares from Johnson (2010) and
Barrett and Johnson (2001) to population data described in Figure 8.
55
Figure 12
Catholic-Protestant Competition Variable since 1900:
Italy, Other Western Europe, Eastern Europe
.30
.25
.20
.15
.10
.05
.00
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Italy
Other Western Europe
Eastern Europe
Note: See Section II.C. of the text for definitions.
56
Figure 13
Catholic-Protestant Competition Variable since 1900:
Latin America, North America, Asia, Africa
.30
.25
.20
.15
.10
.05
.00
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Latin America
Asia
Note: See Section II.C. of the text for definitions.
57
North America
Africa
Figure 14
Secularization Variable since 1900:
Italy, Other Western Europe, Eastern Europe
.20
.16
.12
.08
.04
.00
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Italy
Other Western Europe
Eastern Europe
Note: See Section II.D. of the text for definitions.
58
Figure 15
Secularization Variable since 1900:
Latin America, North America, Asia, Africa
.20
.16
.12
.08
.04
.00
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Latin America
Asia
Note: See Section II.D. of the text for definitions.
59
North America
Africa