By David Warren.

For all the saints I can call to mind, and I should think for all saints, a job in politics would seem highly unsuitable.

Looking at it only from the point of view of an exemplary "Saint X," as it were: his politicizing would be counter-productive, to the point of wrong.

What would he have to do, to achieve holiness? While making some kind of mark in this debilitating trade? In what way could he contribute to anyone's salvation?

To "save" someone in a political sense is to contribute to his survival, or to the recovery of his fortune. These are worldly things. The citizen may be in need of food or medicine, but when these things are obtained by political methods, we get the usual effects of socialism.

More often he is simply in need of money, and by supplying him with the fruit of public taxation, while not requiring that he do anything to earn it, we get the usual effects of inflation.

These are not mere inconveniences. Saint Paul was very clear: "no work, no eat." But he was not a politician; he would never get himself elected with a promise like that.

Of course, there are charitable, graceful acts. Religious, specifically Christian, tradition encourages these. Not everything must be done for money.

Medical doctors (whether on the state's payroll or not) are sometimes credited with sanctity by the patients whose lives they have saved; and I would not want to condemn them, even while playing the curmudgeon.

But mere survival, or the restoration of someone's good health, or wealth, is not the same thing as sanctity.

Neither, on the way to these good ends, is getting one's sweet way in politics, whatever the operation that accomplished it (usually false rhetoric).

For some reason, persons from Mahatma Gandhi to Martin Luther King, Jr. are compulsively cited when examples are sought for sanctity in politics. More anciently, there was George Washington's candor when he hacked into his father's cherry tree; and there are several other legendary indications of honesty and good behavior.

But to perform most conspicuously saintly acts (stopping abortions, for instance) is more controversial, and "not done" in democratic politics, except for empty promises. For electorates do not tend to be saintly, nor can an ungoverned mob perform a saintly act.

Conversely, Saint John Paul II may be considered as a politician, and a specifically saintly one, crossing over from his "day job" as pope to many sterling accomplishments in the world.

But Wojtyla was not a saint in the merely colloquial sense, much less than from his station in the hierarchy. He was behaving well, even before being elevated to the papacy; and had he remained stuck in Poland he would also be a saint. Or, might have been recognized as such, depending who was "His Holiness" in Rome.

It is unfortunate that the modern habit of canonizing every pope who dies has blurred the distinction between saintliness and political efficiency. (Our Catholic ancestors knew better than to do this.)

There were arguably several other magnificent "crossovers" in the fair history of the Church, but Church politics has not been, generally, the means to engender saints, or a source of the best inspiration.

It's likely that saintly acts "behind the scenes" were involved in preventing, or at least distracting, certain gentlemen from becoming pope.

There are no footnotes on actions like these, secretly manifested; but for the moment let us consider the "negatives" that may be holy. Thus we might gain insight into why Our Lord allows evil to continue (including what evil politicians do).

For positive forces require negative forces. They are what makes it possible for victory to be declared.

Worldly ambition is invariably excluded from the career of the potential saint, as Christians realize, for a reason. This is because the saint is working towards a divine victory, which cannot be foreseen - except by "divination." We see only the battles, dimly; God sees the war.

In secular, or r...