In message 5.2.0.9.1.20031023082716.0305c970@smtp.panix.com, Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org writes
At 01:08 PM 10/22/03 -0700, Delirium wrote:
In retrospect I agree partially, and would move towards using neither Blessed or Saint. In fact, I would prefer not using titles at all. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant for an example of this in practice (note that it does not start off "General Ulysses S. Grant..." -- even though in this case "General Grant" was in fact a common way to refer to him before, during, and after his Presidency.
There are a few exceptions, of course. "Saint Peter" should be referred to as such, because that's the most common way to refer to him (though I wouldn't object to "Peter the Apostle" either). Popes should probably be referred to as "Pope John Paul II", because "John Paul II" is not actually a personal name, but one adopted with the office. But I don't think this should extend to all people who have titles.
This is basically the--sensible, I think--approach recommended by Fowler, decades ago: start by calling people by the name they're best known by, and optionally add others. So Mother Theresa gets listed as that ("Saint Theresa" needs to be a disambiguation anyway), and the article should note her birth name as well as the fact that she was canonized by the Roman Catholic church in 2003
Just nitpicking to be pedantic, but she hasn't been canonized, only beatified so far... (I nearly said "beautified", but that would be more difficult! :) )