Originally Posted by Markus
I don't think referring to someone as a "Saint" is necessarily a serious statement about their moral integrity, it's more a statement about how their place in history has been canonized.
Most of the actual "Saints" denoted as such by the Catholic Church weren't too big on moral integrity either. Along with some of the Popes, some of the Angels, etc. etc. etc. The entire Catholic Church isn't too big on moral integrity if you really want to split hairs.
I mean, you would think, " 'Saint' isn't just a title they hand out to anyone!" would be a true statement, but you would be wrong. The Catholic Church does actually hand out the title Saint to practically anyone. Occasionally they also do the same with the title of "Pope". It's actually a relatively new idea to the Catholic Church that you can't just buy titles like 'Saint' or 'Pope'. Randy Rhoads and Vinnie Paul could have been the most miserable sons of bitches ever and they still would have been more Saintly than half of the actual roster of Saints. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_saints
So whenever people say, "Don't you think it's a little hyperbolic to call this deceased person a Saint?" they are actually totally wrong, but not for the reasons you would think. The qualifications for Saint hood are incredibly low. Being a decent person isn't actually a requirement historically speaking. Fuck, being a real, non-fictional person isn't even a requirement to be venerated by the Catholic Church.