If everything you say is spot on true it's still bat-shit, goon-ball bonkers - if not more so. Which is MY point.
Having been raised without the slightest inkling of how Catholicism works, the whole idea of saints seems weird to me. But, I wouldn't go so far as to call it "crazy": I think there's a least a modicum of internal consistency to the story you shared.
But, I have to agree with you about the notion of "miracles." There's no end of people out there claiming that God healed their child when the doctors said there was no chance. To me, the most reasonable conclusion is that some error was made in either assessing, presenting or interpreting what the child's "chances" were. All the "miracle" healing stories from the past involve people being suddenly raised to perfect health from their deathbeds: but nowadays, most medical miracles seem to involve a few days of bed rest with an IV drip in addition to the prayers of loved ones.
I remember being taught about alleged miracles that happened in the early parts of Mormon history, such as the miracle of the gulls. As a kid, I was taught that in 1848 (the Mormons' first year in Utah), a huge flock of gulls miraculously appeared out of nowhere to save the Mormons' first harvest from swarms of crickets, and everyone praised God for His greatness.
Of course, despite being very prolific diary-writers, the early Mormons seem to have meticulously avoided leaving any firsthand attestations of the alleged miracle, preferring to instead let it be gradually mythologized over the pulpit a few decades later.
I think there's an even simpler explanation. 1848 was the Mormons' first year in Utah (they had arrived in the previous autumn), so they had no experience with the local ecology, and didn't know what to expect when they planted their first crops.
The bottom line to me is that at some point, somebody pointed out how gulls eat crickets, and then the story escalated over a couple of decades until it took on mythological proportions.
I believe this is the reason why the miracles of the past seem so much more miraculous than alleged modern-day miracles. God used to throw fireballs from the sky on cue, instantly vanquish diseases with a word or a touch, and turn water into wine before the end of the party. Anymore, it seems like all God does is stealthily make people gradually recover from diseases while under the care of vigilant medical professionals, let them walk away from car accidents with just a few bruises and scrapes, or arrange for a friend to remember to pay back some money owed around the time when their creditor is in a minor budget crisis.
The general quality of miracles seems to bear an inverse relationship with the passage of time. Furthermore, the quality of a specific miracle also seems to bear the same inverse relationship with the passage of time, just like "fish stories." I feel like these two things are probably related.