What is holiness - The Saints

Some Catholics called me to get informed about saints, which they see as the proof that Catholicism would be the one true religion.
So I did, just enough to draw a secure conclusion.
I checked about Padre Pio, and Curé d'Ars

I have read just a little of Curé d'Ars'teaching, his text about the Judgement. This was enough to me. What is this teaching about ? This is just a description of God as infinitely mad, hateful, paranoid and sectarian, whose only wish is to send to hell anyone who does not worship His sectarian madness. Something which is, after all, just an extension of the paranoid, sectarian madness already in the Gospel as Jesus'words: "who is not for me is against me" and "who has not the Son has no life and the judgement of God is over him".
And this is what they call a saint ?
The second feature of this man, for which he is called a saint, was his asceticism. I'd rather call this masochism: he worships an ideology of hating and hurting oneself.
The fundamentalist Catholic guy (who I knew as he was a mathematics student with me) who had put forward Curé d'Ars as his model of a saint, claimed that Catholicism would be unique (and thus the only Truth) just because it is the only religion having saints. This claim is just nonsense:
- As for fundamentalism (madness, paranoia, sectarianism), there are examples of such "saints" in Islam, such as Osama bin Laden; there are many in neo-protestantism such as Jack T. Chick.
- If we rather seek for peaceful saints in other religions, there can be many examples such as Gandhi or the Buddha Boy.

So, finally, what is a saint ? A saint is someone fulfilling one or more of the following criteria:
If the above dismissal of mystics'opinion as merely human, may a priori seem odd and arbitrary, well, please understand that I perfectly agree that it would a priori seem a very plausible expectation, that people with some mystical (or anyhow wonderful spiritual) experience, would have better clues on the truth than those who didn't. However, please understand that I did not just reject this expectation because I did not like it or anything like this, but because I happened to face overwhelming contrary evidences that I finally could not deny; I am "responsible" for dismissing "divine revelations" in the sense that I double-checked their emptiness myself and thus I can commit that this conclusion is true and reliable (and I am not a mere irresponsible messenger of some external, divine, mysterious source), but not in the sense of having made here any arbitrary personal choice, as it is an objective truth I am talking about. It does not matter which belief is more virtuous than another belief, nor whether I or anyone else likes it or not. After careful study, it turns out to be an objective fact that miracles do exist in many religions (or at least: they are no more in a specific religion than in others) to support absurd, contradictory claims, and wasteful actions.

Another text I wrote on the subject (the miracles of Evangelics and Penticostals)

Other people could make the same observation (here are 2 examples I could find)

Up : Religion
Main site : Anti-spirituality