I've read that the post-Vatican II church has canonized more saints in the last 50 years than they did prior to the 70s. And based on lower standards. The idea that someone like Pius X (who tells us we shouldn't be nice) and someone as ecumenical and soft as John Paul II can both be 'saints', is sort of contradictory. When a modern Christian who lived and accepted the teachings of the supposedly 'pastoral' council of Vatican II as dogma, including the parts which are argued by traditionalists not to be dogmatic at all, their affirmation of its teachings get imputed to them as part of their righteousness after undergoing canonization. Saying it doesn't matter that John Paul II visited and praised witchdoctors in Africa for their devotion and monotheism, and kisses a Koran, because he was just acting out of respect.... By arguing that he was just following his conscience and well meaning, they accept that the repudiation of the dogma against religious liberty in V2 is in fact valid teaching, and that many of the controversial aspects of Vatican II are more than just 'pastoral'. Thing is, what this gives us is that they don't, as saints, need to have a solid stance in their evangelical mission. People can get away with everything saying they're just following their conscience and were well meaning, and then people don't have to have a clear position about the gospel anymore. They might even say that JP2 may have repented of these errors towards the end of his life, but yet, if the majority of someone's public witness and legacy of writing, etc. is filled mostly with heresy and spiritually weak doctrine, then why cite them as an example of holiness? You can't learn from someone who hasn't left behind something to say on these matters.