This has been my recurring question with this: When Sheen was declared a Venerable by the Holy See (ie, that his life had "heroic virtue") this concluded the "secular side" of the canonization process, and steps of the canonization process cannot be reversed, correct? So even if it was revealed in these investigations that Sheen had been involved in something unsavory, he would still be a Venerable. The only necessary thing to go from a Venerable to a Blessed is the approval of a miracle, which the Vatican has also confirmed/approved. The handwringing over allegations that may or may not come up seems immaterial when considering a person already confirmed to have had an overall heroic life. Why are we still thinking about the worldly side of the process when Sheen has already passed it, when all that is left is praying for miracles from heaven?
Following your line of thought, my question is in a hypothetical scenario where a person was declared venerable but it later came to light that they had abused, can the church revoke the title? I don't think this will happen with Ven. Sheen, but I wonder if it's happened before or if there's a process should it happen in the future.
I have heard it said that when it comes to "actually getting the sausage made," +Sheen's beatification is being blackballed because if Peoria (or some other independent entity) came in to search archives and records to investigate stuff like abuse/scandal/mishandling/etc., or if Rome moved the process forward and/or requested more information, then some adjacent ugly stuff hidden away about New York dioceses (and the Cupich-Tobin-Dolan cabal) could get brought to light.
It's certainly not implausible. +Cupich in particular is keen to use his position with Rome to block things he doesn't find advantageous to his corner - which is why the PNAC took quite a long process to get its newest rector, because +Cupich called up Rome and protested other chosen candidates that were awaiting approval at least twice.
There's no reason to continue to block +Sheen's process, and honestly there hasn't been since the "bodily remains dispute" was settled, and so I can only imagine the blockage is purposeful on the part of the aforementioned clergymen.
It's not implausible. Though as a former member of his diocese a few decades back with contacts there, I have heard of nothing specific. But of course it is plausible.
What I have found fascinating but have not seen any followup on, is the antipathy that +Matano's predecessor had toward's Sheen's cause. Several members of Sheen's cultus in Rochester have even told me more than one story of how records for his cause, including [IIRC] possible relics, were outright discarded by the former bishop.
It is possible the lack of follow-up is due to the cultus members having an overactive imagination, thus nothing newsworthy was found. But it's also possible there is a McCarrick dynamic going on here, where no one will go on the record about these things. From what I do know both about the former bishop (a lot) and recent ecclesial dynamics, I find this plausible too. This dynamic might also go towards explaining how +Matano's actions on this matter have been somewhat puzzling and inconsistent.
It’s so sad that church politics is keeping a holy man from being made a blessed. I love reading and listening to Ven. Fulton Sheen, and ever since I found out that he was a Venerable I love praying to him as well! I hope they will get out of the way soon.
Thank you for writing this. I've been hoping to hear something from The Pillar about this for a while. I look forward to the day when his beatification can finally be pushed through.
I agree that the process should go forward. If God has given a miracle how absurd are our worldly concerns about future litigation. In today’s culture literally anyone can be accused of anything ad infinitum. Where is our faith?
I was under the impression we had an approved miracle. This raises the question, is the Church declaring him blessed because what the miracle entails, or, does the Church declare someone blessed because of their life? While the Church has recently (and longer) waived miracles at times to raise someone to the Altars (St. John XXIII and St. Peter Faber SJ come to mind), in Sheen's case we have a miracle after his life was reviewed to recognize him as Servant of God and then Venerable.
Please pray for Bishop Matano and for all of us in the Diocese of Rochester! This bankruptcy has been a slog and poor Bishop Matano has handled it with grace and seems well ready to have his resignation accepted. Prayers for a good and faithful Bishop to succeed our current Shepherd!
To me, it seems difficult to canonize any bishop from that time period while so much is still unrevealed about the rot in the American episcopate at the time. Not just are there any direct allegations of misconduct against Sheen himself, but what did his episcopal friends and benefactors do and how complicit was he? I personally have no idea. But did the investigation into heroic virtue pry into these questions?
As long as cabals of bishops are alive and protecting their own reputations, how can we really know these guys’ true actions and true character?
If J.H. Newman had to wait 120 years for beatification, surely Ven. F. Sheen can wait until we have clearer hindsight on his historical period.
Mistakes or a lack of discernment in some matters like with St Joseph Calasanz and certain appointments to his Piarists (which resulted in their temporary suppression) shouldn't necessarily preclude sainthood. Ven Sheen was not himself the greatest diocesan bishop but that's as nothing compared to his broadcast ministry.
This has been my recurring question with this: When Sheen was declared a Venerable by the Holy See (ie, that his life had "heroic virtue") this concluded the "secular side" of the canonization process, and steps of the canonization process cannot be reversed, correct? So even if it was revealed in these investigations that Sheen had been involved in something unsavory, he would still be a Venerable. The only necessary thing to go from a Venerable to a Blessed is the approval of a miracle, which the Vatican has also confirmed/approved. The handwringing over allegations that may or may not come up seems immaterial when considering a person already confirmed to have had an overall heroic life. Why are we still thinking about the worldly side of the process when Sheen has already passed it, when all that is left is praying for miracles from heaven?
Following your line of thought, my question is in a hypothetical scenario where a person was declared venerable but it later came to light that they had abused, can the church revoke the title? I don't think this will happen with Ven. Sheen, but I wonder if it's happened before or if there's a process should it happen in the future.
I'll do some homework on this, you two, and then get back to you.
I have heard it said that when it comes to "actually getting the sausage made," +Sheen's beatification is being blackballed because if Peoria (or some other independent entity) came in to search archives and records to investigate stuff like abuse/scandal/mishandling/etc., or if Rome moved the process forward and/or requested more information, then some adjacent ugly stuff hidden away about New York dioceses (and the Cupich-Tobin-Dolan cabal) could get brought to light.
It's certainly not implausible. +Cupich in particular is keen to use his position with Rome to block things he doesn't find advantageous to his corner - which is why the PNAC took quite a long process to get its newest rector, because +Cupich called up Rome and protested other chosen candidates that were awaiting approval at least twice.
There's no reason to continue to block +Sheen's process, and honestly there hasn't been since the "bodily remains dispute" was settled, and so I can only imagine the blockage is purposeful on the part of the aforementioned clergymen.
Cupich and Tobin are in a cabal? with Dolan? take your meds, brother
I'm supposed to be the insane one
It's not implausible. Though as a former member of his diocese a few decades back with contacts there, I have heard of nothing specific. But of course it is plausible.
What I have found fascinating but have not seen any followup on, is the antipathy that +Matano's predecessor had toward's Sheen's cause. Several members of Sheen's cultus in Rochester have even told me more than one story of how records for his cause, including [IIRC] possible relics, were outright discarded by the former bishop.
It is possible the lack of follow-up is due to the cultus members having an overactive imagination, thus nothing newsworthy was found. But it's also possible there is a McCarrick dynamic going on here, where no one will go on the record about these things. From what I do know both about the former bishop (a lot) and recent ecclesial dynamics, I find this plausible too. This dynamic might also go towards explaining how +Matano's actions on this matter have been somewhat puzzling and inconsistent.
It’s so sad that church politics is keeping a holy man from being made a blessed. I love reading and listening to Ven. Fulton Sheen, and ever since I found out that he was a Venerable I love praying to him as well! I hope they will get out of the way soon.
Thank you for writing this. I've been hoping to hear something from The Pillar about this for a while. I look forward to the day when his beatification can finally be pushed through.
I agree that the process should go forward. If God has given a miracle how absurd are our worldly concerns about future litigation. In today’s culture literally anyone can be accused of anything ad infinitum. Where is our faith?
I was under the impression we had an approved miracle. This raises the question, is the Church declaring him blessed because what the miracle entails, or, does the Church declare someone blessed because of their life? While the Church has recently (and longer) waived miracles at times to raise someone to the Altars (St. John XXIII and St. Peter Faber SJ come to mind), in Sheen's case we have a miracle after his life was reviewed to recognize him as Servant of God and then Venerable.
Thanks for the update!
Please pray for Bishop Matano and for all of us in the Diocese of Rochester! This bankruptcy has been a slog and poor Bishop Matano has handled it with grace and seems well ready to have his resignation accepted. Prayers for a good and faithful Bishop to succeed our current Shepherd!
To me, it seems difficult to canonize any bishop from that time period while so much is still unrevealed about the rot in the American episcopate at the time. Not just are there any direct allegations of misconduct against Sheen himself, but what did his episcopal friends and benefactors do and how complicit was he? I personally have no idea. But did the investigation into heroic virtue pry into these questions?
As long as cabals of bishops are alive and protecting their own reputations, how can we really know these guys’ true actions and true character?
If J.H. Newman had to wait 120 years for beatification, surely Ven. F. Sheen can wait until we have clearer hindsight on his historical period.
Mistakes or a lack of discernment in some matters like with St Joseph Calasanz and certain appointments to his Piarists (which resulted in their temporary suppression) shouldn't necessarily preclude sainthood. Ven Sheen was not himself the greatest diocesan bishop but that's as nothing compared to his broadcast ministry.