Oh, one thing I forgot to say…can we please not turn this into a debate about the bible and God? If it is being used to answer the question given, it is understandable. I forgot how quick religous and policitical questions become religious and political debates.
I think Cecil may have been a bit hard on Christina the Astonishing. (Wiki Link) Crazy is a very harsh way to discribe someone with epilepsy and synesthesia. (Just a WAG on the synesthesia, but it fits.)
Of course, having a serious mental illness isn’t really grounds for sainthood. If it were, you could pretty much canonize anyone who credulously practices modern christianity.
Not “out of wedlock”. Many histories of St Augustine salk about his “long-time mistress” whom he left when he converted. What they fail to mention is that, under the laws of the time and place, they were legally married, by virtue of cohabiting together for an extended time, and that that was the typical form of marriage, even for Christians. So it’s just plain wrong to refer to her as his “mistress”; she was his wife.
And I think we kind of have to accept the Bible’s word on Joseph, since the Bible is the only source we have that says that he even existed at all. If you’re not talking about the man as described by the Bible, about whom are you talking? It’s like the story of the classics scholar who spent his career proving that the Iliad wasn’t written by Homer, but by another Greek with the same name.
Are popes routinely canonized? If so, there are a few who were real pieces of work. John XII, for example.
I’m sorry. I’ll quit it.
What SAINT AGNES did to the Giant Bolster was very nice.
The first 25 Popes were canonized. Liberius in the 4th Century broke the string for some reason. Most of the first 100 Popes which takes us to the 9th century were canonized. It starts to get fairly rare after that. The last Pople to be made a saint was Pius X who served in the early 1900’s. Before him you have to go to Pius V from the 1500’s.
There was an Irish Saint, St. Martin, who ate a baby for some reason. I wish I could find the story on-line, but it’s not one of the more popular ones. His eating a baby was a good thing, somehow. It helped prove how saintly he was.
Another Irish Saint is…damn, I’m forgetting the name. Kevin, maybe? You can go see the little cave where he used to hang out being all holy and stuff. One day a naked woman went to try to seduce him out of his hermithood and he pushed her off the cliffside to her death. Again, murdering naked women is a *good *thing for a saint.
I don’t see your point. What better source is there for Catholics to understand their religion than the Bible? The historicity of some Biblical characters may be debateable, but in the context of who is worthy to be declared a saint I don’t see why that matters. If God says he’s righteous, in a work He divinely inspired, isn’t that good enough? The Catholic Church thinks God did so; personally, I don’t think God exists but so what? Wouldn’t that render rather moot the discussion of the saints?
From what little I know about what little is known, there appears to have been: (a) Brigid, a pagan Irish goddess; (b) Brigid, a semi-historical girl named after her who was later canonized: (c) a set of legends about the more-or-less historical Brigid which of course incorporated elements of the myths about the deity. Most of what we “know” about St. Brigid is in the nature of these legends. So to what degree you consider Brigid mythical and equated with the deity is more or less a question of taste rather than fact.
I actually don’t disagree with you, Excalibre. I was reading this:
And thinking this meant “outside of the context of what the Catholic church requires.”
If we’re just talking “What does the Catholic Church think is required for saintliness?” Then yes, of course, whatever the Holy Bible says.
But if we’re talking “Saints that have been sainted, were they in fact, saintly?” then we’re looking for independent verification.
As for my precise statement, I was referring to all the “you’s” in this statement:
I think you ought to reread my original posting, as last time I checked there were no inflammatory statements to be found in it. (I might also draw attention to the hypocrisy of your accusation by noting that calling me a nut is pretty inflammatory itself.)
That’s a non-sequitur if ever I heard one. Entry into a family by adoption and by descent are mutually exclusive. You’re either born into a family or adopted into it.
Neither do I. But then again, I never suggested that Joseph was a wife-beating, kitten-torturing, virgin-raping serial killer.
To examine the evidence you presented, the only reason given for his purported “righteousness” is his plan to dump his wife via divorce rather than have her publically prosecuted for adultery or fornication (of which the penalty for the former is stoning). If such kindness is all that’s required for canonization then expect to celebrate the feast of St. Psychonaut some day in the near future. 
No you don’t. I don’t believe in God and thus I have no belief whatsoever respecting his/her/its ability to judge character.
Please provide a citation for your claim that Joseph is one of the most highly regarded people in the Bible, or at least indicate what the different degrees of regard are and how one distinguishes among them. Approximately how many people are there in the set of “the most highly regarded people”? Can you list some Biblical figures who are highly regarded by God, but not quite so highly as Joseph? Is anyone regarded more highly than Joseph? Is Paul, for example, as highly regarded as Joseph? How about Peter? Abraham? John the Baptist? Is there a system of ranks?
Erm… I believe the question was referring to historical, canonized “saints” (or candidates for sainthood) about whom an examination of additional information or overlooked facts can point to negative qualities in the person (or a rigged canonization procedure). It could hardly be applied to those about whom we have nothing but the Church magisterium (Bible+tradition) on even their mere existence and thus cannot pass a judgement on personal qualities.
Thus, fair game for the OP Question are the likes of: Augustine; Cyril of Alexandria; Louis IX of France; Pius IX, Mother Theresa
The OP question OTOH is moot for the likes of: Joseph; Mary Mother of Christ, Mary Magdalene; every Prophet and Patriarch in the OT; the folk-legend saints like Ursula And Her Eleven Thousand Virgins.
Which means, psychonaut, that St. Joseph of Nazareth did not have to do jack to “qualify” for canonization: he got a “bye” like almost everyone who appears in the Bible as making a positive contribution to whatever was God’s oddly convoluted scheme of saving people in spite of themselves.
Now, can we discuss for instance, whether St. Louis IX of France was really saintly, or just a case of Papal bootlicking? 
Which is good, because the nine thousandth, seven hundred and thirty second virgin…you didn’t hear it from me, but she was a mean drunk.
Sri Ramakrishna has been sanctified as a major saint in the court of Hindu popular opinion. To diss him would be like dissing St. Patrick among the Irish. So the book Kali’s Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna by Jeffrey J. Kripal must have been remarkably offensive to many devout Hindus. According to Kripal, Ramakrishna was gay but closeted. Even to gay-tolerant Hindus, though, Kali’s Child came across with too much of a louche exposé of the saint’s sexual and Tantric episodes, many of them very stressful and difficult, from the parts of the Srisriramakrsnakathamrta (his official hagiography) that were expurgated from the English translation The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna. Plus X-rated anecdotes classified as “secret talk.”
Don’t you need to have performed miracles to be a Saint?
If so, I’m confident that no scientific investigation has ever taken place, which leaves us with a circular argument:
- X is a Saint because they performed miracles
- we know X performed miracles because they are a Saint.
I wonder about the very concept of political/military/secular Kings being made Saints - two examples:
St. Louis IX was also known as King Louis IX of France. He actually put down an uprising against Feudalism and led two crusades. I can’t judge him really - I am not scholar of 13th Century Europe, nor was I in his silk slippers - But his tale, even on the most pro-Louis tale I could find on-line this Catholic Website, he doesn’t sound very “Holy” - and I have my doubts that he would pass muster today.
Somewhat similarly, Charles I is a Saint in the Anglican Church - depending on your view of the English Civils war he could be seen as a not-so-“Saintly”-guy. At the very least, he was definitely not someone who believed that Parliament had as much a say in running England as most modern Westerners would.
Oh, certainly, in the time the modern canonization process has been in place, there must have been some “saints” for whom the “evidence of miracles” at the hearing would kinda have strained even the Church’s own rules. But that’s entirely apart from whether they were “saintly” in character or deeds.