I think I understand your concern, and it's a good one: you want to make sure that no creature is given the supreme adoration which belongs to God alone. In this you are right.
However, "reverence" doesn't mean only the supreme honor and veneration due to God. For example:
Joshua 4:14 That day the LORD exalted Joshua in the sight of all Israel; and they revered him all the days of his life, just as they had revered Moses.
The Bible also speaks of revering God's throne, His sanctuary, and His city Jerusalem. So clearly, "to revere" can mean to honor people or even places and things associated with God.
This is an inevitable aspect of our human nature. Love for a lovable person overflows to things, places, and other people associated with that person. A mother keeps forever a little valentine card made for her by her child who died young. An American serviceman in Iraq kisses a snapshot of his wife in the U.S. There is nothing wrong with this; in fact, it would be wrong, and a kind of spiritual violence, to ridicule it or try to suppress it.
Like all things human, it can take wrong turns or get misdirected or excessive. Returning to matters of faith, I suppose that there would be some people who would want to canonize Elvis Presley or Princess Di. That's why the Church sets up a formal procedure for canonization. The idea is to keep things based on oobjective virtue rather than mere popularity; and to seek God's guidance, which is why there is the requirement of miracles which can be investigated --- and believe me, they are investigated strictly.
As an example, since 1858 there have been thousands, even tens of thousands of reported healing miracles at the shrine of Lourdes, France. The number of verified miracles? ---71.
That doesn't mean than none of those other reported healings were miracles. It just means they were not investigates; or thy were investigsted and their supernatural provenance was found to be doubtful.
God Bless