text: Editorial standards seem to be getting lower.  The author is making childish mistakes as though he doesn't know the topic.  First in setting "rules" against "people" or pastoral care as though the "rules" (which is a kind of silly word for Church teaching about morality, as though Christianity is Islam or Judaism) have nothing to do with the care of souls.  
  
  And next concerning canonization.  Does the author simply not know what a saint is and what it means to canonize one?  That a saint is not a folk hero/celebrity "good person" (not that the two mentioned even make it into that category) or even an exemplary Christian but someone who has attained the Beatific Vision.  And that canonizing someone is a declaration that he is definitely in that state.  Which is why it is (or used to be) a long and cautious process, so long that Albert the Great wasn't canonized until about 1930!
  
  These are not matters of opinion but of fact.  "Why does the Church have rules?"  "What does "saint" mean?