>>516598849
>>516598704
Generally speaking, we do not recognize people from outside of our own religion as saints. I could write about it for some time. Catholicism defines three main tiers of Christianity, which I will define quite simply: First, we have a fully valid Church with full Christian authority (bestowed by Christ Himself), fully valid priests, and fully valid members. Second, there are other churches which have valid priests and valid members, but do not have full authority from Christ. Third, there are other churches which do not have valid priests, but do have valid members. Members of all three groups are considered Christians, and clergy of the lower tiers are generally considered legitimate clergy chosen by God, but they are not considered within our Church and they will have a substantially harder time reaching Paradise than us.

There are members of the second-tier religions who have been canonized, but it is extraordinarily rare, and generally it means that their actual religion was ambiguous given the lines can often blur between membership of Catholicism and second-tier churches. (These are incredibly small groups, and their boundaries/memberships are quite often debated. Generally, they actually identify as "Catholic Church" during their worship, for example.)

Protestants are generally considered tier 3, valid Christians but no valid priesthood/clergy. There has never been a saint from this category. The closest to it is that some people, mainly Protestants, have asked us to recognize Charles I (a Protestant who died as a martyr killed by other Protestants for being a Catholic) as a token saint to recognize that they go to Heaven at all. I'd say at very least, the fag killed him for being Christian, so Charlie Kirk has a fairly decent stance of being a martyr.