Take a look at the citation provided by Journet, or St. Thomas. What they say has nothing to do with the process. As Journet says, if the Church proposed a damned man as a Saint to the Church, she would be teaching the Church that these actions which damned a man are salutary. Thomas says that honor of the saints is a profession of faith, and therefore the Pontiff is infallible. Neither of them mention anything about a certain procedure required to make canonization infallible - because it isn't. No matter what procedure is followed by the Roman Pontiff, the Church would err regarding faith if it were to venerate as a Saint someone who is not. The Church would err regarding morals if it were to follow an unholy man as an example. Both of these are impossible.
How the Church declares a Saint meant something different to them, in other words, than it does to the pretenders, today.
If you have a document of JP II saying that his declarations of sainthood aren't meant to be declarations of sainthood, produce it. There's no reason to believe that he intends other than what he says: "we declare and define that Bl. Pio of Pietrelcina, is a saint".
Read what I wrote again, instead of ignoring it. They spoke of one thing. There's something else, today. Read it to understand what I was trying to say to you. It's the only way.