With the current effort to gain Saint status for John-Paul II, I began wondering about the plethora of Saints in the Catholic religion. I have heard that some Saints should not be considered “Holy”, as they were elevated to that status by corrupt Popes in the dim past. These elevations to Sainthood were supposedly done for political reasons as favors from said corrupt Popes. Are these stories true, and which Popes and Saints were involved?
I’m not sure about less-than-saintly Saints appointed by corrupt popes, but it has been speeded up for political reasons. King Olaf of Norway was quickly sanctified to aid in securing the Christianization of that country. From what I was told at Nidaros Cathedral (Trondheim, supposedly built on the spot where he was buried), the Church figured making the local boy one of the big players would be a good political move. (Well, they phrased it differently.)
He died July 29, 1030 and the translation and beatification happened August 3, 1031. One year was pretty damn quick, especially given the speed to travel/communication at the time. (Canonization was not typical done in that period and in Olaf’s case, didn’t happen until 1888.) Here’s the standard Wiki cite.
Just FYI: The official Church position on corrupt Popes is that, while there have been unworthy men holding the office, their actions on spiritual matters was still infallible and divinely inspired. So, at least officially, there have been no canonizations that were incorrect.
One should remember also that, until about the 10th century, there was no official canonization process. Folks became saints because they were famous, or locally venerated, or there were stories told about them. Many of these were delisted by the Church in 1969 (St. Christopher being the most well-known) when it was decided that evidence for their holiness, or even their existence, was inadequate. Undoubtedly some of these had been declared saints for political or conversion purposes.
Only Christ is holy. The rest are simply holier than thou.
In Roman Catholicism, ALL men are sinners. This includes saints. Thus just being a “good person” isn’t enough to be a saint. In theory, even I could some day be a saint. What makes someone a saint is that through the grace of God they are able to perform miracles. If through the grace of God I am given the power to work miracles and do so, then I can be a saint. Sainthood is merely recognizing those who God has chosen.
In theory, you don’t have to be dead to be an official saint.
Saint Christopher is still listed in the calendar of the Roman rite on his traditional feast day 25 July. The 1969 revision of the calendar did “downgrade” him in the sense that his feast day is no longer universally celebrated. However he is still venerated liturgically in many areas. I have attended masses on Saint Christopher’s feast day here in Australia as well as in Europe.
For Catholics, saints are those in heaven enjoying the beatific vision. Some have been officially canonised. The vast majority have not. Whether canonised or not, a person must have died to be a saint.
In theory, all those who have been redeemed by Christ are saints. I guess some are just saintlier than others. 
That’s apply also to regular priests. In response to various heresies denying validity of sacraments done by a corrupt members of the clergy, the catholic church stated that their morals is completely irrelevant to their acts as priests.
By the way, I believe that Joan of Arc was granted sainthood in a political move to please the french (though not by a particularily corrupt pope).
Charlemagne was made a saint too, I believe for the same reasons. The king St-Louis, on the other hand, probably deserved its sainthood by the standarts of the time, given that he was incredibly pious (probably to a pathological point). However, I suppose there has been in this case too some political pressure by his successors.