To answer the question of this thread, I would say nobody. I think it's a bad inclination for people to think they know who is deserving of such a thing. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

If you read Fr. Faber's book on canonization, and you see how carefully and how delicately the Church examines examined the thoughts, motives, actions, omissions of everyone who she considers canonizing, you see that there is much, much more involved in the canonization process than anyone alive today has any inkling of. To say, "This person seems really holy to me, I think he should be canonized!" betrays an enormous amount of ignorance about the subject as a whole, and I think if people would read a little bit from Fr. Faber's book, they would realize how difficult and delicate the canonization process really is was.

Even the circuмstances of the death-bed are always jealously examined, as if it were the touchstone of final perseverance. Sudden deaths may sometimes impede the advancement of a cause, as rendering the proof of final perseverance incomplete; then indirect and proximate evidence is carefully looked for, as in the case of St. Andrew Avellino and the B. Colette; or miracles immediately afterwards, as in the case of the B. Jordan, the general of the Dominicans. Scacchus tells us that the words with which the dying servants of God recommend their soul to Him must be weighed. When Benedict XIV. was promoter of the faith he objected to the words a servant of God had used on his death-bed about utter trust in God, seeming to exclude the notion of good works and to contravene the decisions of Trent. In like manner objection was taken to Cardinal Paul Buralis of Arezzo having administered the Viaticuм to himself with his own hand, when It was brought him — a singularity contrary to the custom of the modem Church. But Cardinal de Lugo shows that the consent of the priest who brought the Blessed Sacrament excludes all fault in the matter. St. Dominic mentioned things to his own praise on his death-bed, whereas St. John of the Cross would not allow such things to be named in his presence. St. Martin and St. Thomas of Villanova were willing their lives should be prolonged for the good of others; St. Philip Neri and St. Francis of Sales quite rejected the idea. St. Francesca Romans was noted for having a death-bed without temptations, whereas other saints have died overclouded, as it were, with the shadow of God’s judgments, while St. Romuald, St. John of God, and St. Cassian of Nami, died without witness of man...

I don't know much about +Thuc, but I'm sorry to hear that this happened to him. Maybe this shows how difficult things could be back then. If he can be cut some slack, given what he endured, then perhaps others can be too (like +ABL). I'd be interested in reading his autobiography. He does sound like a good and humble man, even though he made mistakes.

Here's the one copy of his autobiography that I could find.  Unfortunately, it ends abruptly and we don't have the entire thing there.

http://www.einsicht-aktuell.de/index.php?svar=2&ausgabe_id=180&artikel_id=1920

Here's the one copy of his autobiography that I could find.  Unfortunately, it ends abruptly and we don't have the entire thing there.

http://www.einsicht-aktuell.de/index.php?svar=2&ausgabe_id=180&artikel_id=1920

My few interventions had the goal of defending Christ’s church against the modernistic attacks, against the disparagement of the church by a well organized modernistic party under the leadership of Suenens and other prelates like Marty, the current Cardinal Archbishop of Paris.  I must also add that the majority of the council fathers, particularly those from North America, did not understand Latin well, the official and binding language of the council. They spent the bulk of the council debates in both cafes set up in St. Peter, where they drank coffee or Coca Cola. They only returned at the time of the vote in the council auditorium without properly knowing what they were voting about.
 
    They voted randomly, once with YES, once with NO (for a change they said), and these votes were officially "inspired by the Holy Spirit" and were counted up to make up the "majority." I saw other Fathers—very few—, that did the call on the Holy Spirit—not in the cafes but rather prayed the rosary at their seats and asked their neighbours for advice about the vote!  

.

Thank you for posting this! I knew this book existed in French and German, but I wasn't aware it existed in English. Maybe the whole thing hasn't been translated yet?

Very interesting reminiscences about Vatican II. This is a pretty amazing statement:

.

What? Are you serious? This sounds like some sort of joke.

When the male auditors arrived for session two, they mingled effortlessly with prelates and priests at the two coffee bars, known as "Bar-Jonah" and "Bar-Abbas."  But this did not hold true when the female auditors arrived during session three.  Having women in such close proximity was too much for many bishops and, so to relieve their uneasiness, a separate coffee bar for the women was created.  Chagrined by this attempt, the women called their segregated area, "Bar-Nun"  or  "Bar-None."  José and Luz-Marie Alvarez-Icaza and others protested this arrangement and more than a few churchmen cross over the artificial barrier to the exhange ideas with the women.

Women also inspired a bit of conciliar doggerel. As is well known, the popular coffee bars during breaks at the council had been dubbed “Bar Jonah” and “Bar Abbas.” Orsuto explained that a third bar was opened to accomdate the auditors, and because several were women, wags took to calling it “Bar Nun.”