www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Beatification of Ven. Archbp. Fulton Sheen "on hold"

Full story at Fr. Z:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/09/dispute-over-the-remains-of-ven-fulton-sheen/

WASHINGTON (CNS) — The canonization cause of Archbishop Fulton Sheen has been suspended indefinitely, according to a statement issued Sept. 3 by the Diocese of Peoria, Illinois, where the archbishop was born.

The suspension was announced “with immense sadness,” the diocese said. “The process to verify a possible miracle attributed to Sheen had been going extremely well, and only awaited a vote of the cardinals and the approval of the Holy Father. There was every indication that a possible date for beatification in Peoria would have been scheduled for as early as the coming year.”

More information from the perspective of the Archdiocese of New York here:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/NCRe...entable-decision-to-suspend-sheens-cause

Why a portion of the Venerable Archbishop's relics couldn't be taken to Peoria, rather than this "all or nothing" approach is regrettable.

To stop the advancement of his Cause is really beyond all telling and smacks of overt church politics.

It is sad that Sheen's Cause won't "play in Peoria" or as a result of the Bishop of Peoria's actions.

However, that doesn't mean we can't all redouble our efforts to promote the private veneration of this great Saint of God who is certainly canonized as such in Heaven.

At least there they don't bicker about shrines and relics . . .

Alex

Speaking as an Orthodox Christitan, this whole business of 'verified miracles' as a sign of sanctification is something that the west could look to the Christian east for clarification. If a man or woman is locally venerated and their life has been an iconic examplar of attempts to live the Christlike ideal - why the need for miracles. It adds a shamin-like 'magical' feel to the entire issue and to non-Catholics it simply seems out of place. For example, why are the blessed Hieromartyrs and Bishops Pavel of Presov and Teodor of Muchachevo not recognized as Saints? Surely their steadfast witness to the Church and their deaths at the hands of the communists bears witness to their lives? I simply don't understand. In Orthodoxy a Saint may be locally proclaimed and as time bears witness to the truth, the entire Church rejoices in the act of sanctification. Can Eastern Catholics adhere to the ancient and venerable practice of the Orthodox under both the terms of the Unions and the demand of Vatican 2 that the authentic Eastern praxis be respected and restored?

According to this article, the suspension of Venerable Fulton Sheen's cause for canonization is a blessing in disguise: http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/thank-goodness-fulton-sheens-cause-suspended

Along the same lines as DMD, I often wondered if the miracles in question are not manifested in spite of the intercession of the supposed saint in question...not that there might be anything wrong with the putative saint, but the Lord does what he wants. It is really all the Lord's work anyway.

Dear Greigo Amigo!

The author gives his own views which I disagree with for the most part.

There are traditional Catholics who were annoyed with what they called the "Saint Machine" Pope John Paul II etc.

The impression given, and that is what the author, a history professor, gives, is that the medieval Church somehow took things slow with respect to canonization, especially with respect to the Roman Curial offices that looked after canonizations.

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth with respect to many medieval canonizations (again, "traditionalists" in my experience have very little actual understanding of the Church's Tradition . . .).

St Francis of Assisi was canonized quite quickly after his death, to give but one example. His sanctity and his miracles, especially the miracle of himself, sped up the "process."

It is true that church bureaucracy moves slowly and there is a security in that. But the medieval Church wasn't yet bureaucratic.

In fact, Beatification in those times was a local affair. Peter Lombard, for example, was beatified in an Italian diocese where his local culturs persists to this day. John Scotus Erigena, the theologian of the Immaculate Conception, was beatified locally as well until St John Paul II beatified him.

Even after Rome decreed that Beatification was to be cleared by Rome alone, RC bishops continued to beatify saints for their local dioceses - much as continues to occur in the Orthodox and Oriental East.

There is no reason why Blessed Fulton Sheen cannot be beatified iin order to be liturgically venerated in the U.S. (since beatificationis really a "local canonization").

Sainthood is something that can be deferred indefinitely as it has a universal character. But surely the people in North America should be allowed to liturgically venerate their great TV preacher and missionary, Fulton Sheen!

Perhaps the author, in his zeal, wrote the article too to somehow smooth over the scandalous behaviour of RC prelates in the matter.

Holy Archbishop Sheen's niece is on record as saying that this is a "Disgrace to the Church."
Alex

Dear DMD,

Excellent! Agree 100%.

In fact, this debate raged in the 19th century over the canonization of St Josaphat between those in the UGCC who wanted the UGCC itself to canonize Josaphat and those in the "Latinophrone" quarter of our Church wanting to defer the thing to Rome alone (otherwise, how would we know if he had been truly canonized if Rome didn't do it?).

Although Rome did canonize Josaphat in 1875, his cult was still limited to the Eastern Catholic Churches ONLY. It was in 1886 that his cult was extended to the Latin Church as well.

You've raised an important point in terms of the role that a Particular Church's saints play in the overall identity and other Particular characteristics of such a Church.

This is also why I, and many members of the Anglian Ordinariate AND also Western Rite Orthodox, believe that the Anglican saints they were accustomed to honouring in years past should continue to form their patrimony as members of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

But certainly the Eastern Catholic Churches should canonize loally their own saints (the East does not know "beatification" but any given Saint may be canonized several times, first locally (by a monastery, for example), then by a bishop, then again his or her cult could be extended regionally, nationally and finally, universally. St John the Confessor of Rus' (the Russian) was canonized by three Churches - Constantinople, the Church of Greece and then, in 1962, by the Moscow Patriarchate).)

This is actually happening in the UGCC with the Holy Hierarch Andrew Sheptytsky whose icons are everywhere in every parish in a way that goes beyond the cult paid to the 28 UGCC martyrs beatified by St John Paul II in 2000 AD.

Also, UGCC parishes will "adopt" popular Orthodox saints as they are glorified e.g. St Paisius Velichkovsky, St John of Siberia etc. (St Michael's UGCC parish in Welland has icons of them all).

Alex

Totally concur with the points raised

The canonization process in the west is out of control and is like watching a train wreck in process. The idea that every pope involved in Vatican II is somehow a saint is something I find hard to believe. I wonder what the canonization of the month will be in November? At least the Orthodox behave sensibly.

Behave sensibly? Really? Not always.

Look at the glorifications of the Imperial Romanov family, Fr. Alexi Toth and Peter the Aleut. Each of them have had their share of controversy coming from within the Orthodox churches. Was the Imperial family killed for being Christian or being Romanov? Was Fr. Toth's glorification a political move against Catholicism in the USA? An Eastern Catholic who was present at his glorification left shaken from the anti-Catholicism that was being said. Did Peter the Aleut actually exist?
Then there is the recent "decanonization" of 33 new martyrs by the Russian Church. Turns out some of them were in fact not martyred.

Let the Orthodox churches resolve their difficulties on their respective canonizations before giving advice to Rome.

I admit that I am baffled by how some Catholics get canonized sooner than others. I am left wondering how two Roman Catholic priests who were beatified by Pope Saint John Paul II during his trip to Ukraine in 2001 are already canonized while none of the 20+ Greek Catholics who were also beatified have been canonized.

That is the point, the process doesn't make sense. I will say the Orthodox seem to give themselves some "wiggle room" on such things, while we eastern Catholics don't seem to have the "wiggle" option if we make a mistake.

Dear Charles,

Actually, even if you don't like the popes of the Vatican II era, it is a fact that the Coptic Orthodox Church has glorified every single one of their patriarchs since St Mark the Evangelist up until recently - and will continue to do so.

It was actually an Eastern tradition to place one's hierarchs into the calendar after they died. This was broken up with the coming of Nestorius and others who were formally condemned for heresy.

Unless you think that Vatican II and its aftermath were heretical . . .

Alex

Dear Griego Amigo,

As for the two RC prelates who are now canonized - you forgot to add "Polish" as the ultimate way to explain it!

God bless those wonderful Poles though!

(Did you know that I even now fly the Polish flag with the Eagle?)

The Romanovs were passion-bearers and I don't see anything wrong with their canonization.

Alex

I don't know that they were heretics, Alex. I will admit some were saintly, if not saints. However, not enough time has elapsed. In the future, some may look back and not share current enthusiasm - or as I think, a bit of hysteria - for them.