Diocese of Peoria announces postponement of Fulton Sheen's beatification

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joe_5859
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hallelujah. Thank you, Jesus!
I just saw the news myself on the celebratesheen.com website as I was getting antsy not having heard back on the ticketing.

I’m guessing they need more time to plan events, get a bigger venue, and not impose on all the Christmas preparations the several churches involved were doing already.

Plus, even if they announced the ticketing by end of this week, we’re looking at high airfares, logistical nightmares, “no room at the inn” for those needing hotels given that it would be 4 days before Christmas. And one good snowstorm would wreck the whole thing. It was on the way to being Holy Woodstock in freezing conditions.
 
Last edited:
The way I understand it, this has less to do with those organizing the beatification and more to do with a few bishops who have requested “further consideration.”

I am hoping the extra time will be put to good use, but at the same time, I also just wanted to see it finally happen and be done.
 
Perhaps they are concerned about evangelism opportunities like the other article said.

I don’t know who these bishops are, but if there was any dirt in Sheen’s past, Cardinal Spellman would have dug it up and used it on him when he was alive. He’s also apparently still causing miracles according to the Peoria bishop.

Edited to add, I would hope this is not the New York archdiocese having sour grapes because they lost the court case.
 
Last edited:
This is not really good news. This was done at the request of some unnamed bishops that are most likely bent on derailing his beatification. This is a very unusual development - why would “some U.S bishops” ask it to be postponed? Cardinal Dolan with some sour grapes? Some liberal bishops who want to deny an opportunity for traditional Catholics to celebrate?

It is interesting that they immediately go on the defensive concerning sex abuse accusations. On one hand, it makes sense to get out front of the inevitable rumors that would arise due to something like this. On the other hand, they could be trying to deflect some accusations that they may have foreknowledge of, or some anticipated evidence that has been or will be “discovered” in the near future. I guess in the end this is only to be expected; beatifications and canonizations have never been free from politics in the past, and the Venerable Archbishop Sheen is no exception to that rule it appears.
 
Last edited:
It is sad news. But we should go on the possibility that is more charitable.
 
Weserthy said:
It is interesting that they immediately go on the defensive concerning sex abuse accusations.
Click to expand...
I think it’s sadly necessary for them to say this. Since no specific reason was given, if they did not say it, people would be thinking it, and that’s how rumors get started.
 
If the man is truly a saint, we need not rush his beatification ceremony willy-nilly. The fact that the Bishop was hurrying so much suggests to me that he thought someone would pull some more tricks and sure enough they have. I am suspicious of Dolan. But I will be patient, wait and pray.

I do not doubt that Archbishop Sheen was a Holy man and that the obstacles in the path of his beatification are coming from Satan.
 
Nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to clerical sex abuse. It’s a very sad time for the Church.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
It’s been updated to say that’s not the problem.
And if that allegation was made in 2007, I’m sure everybody has looked at it 100 times during the investigation into his process already.
Click to expand...
Yes, the allegation was made in 2007 as part of a larger federal lawsuit made by a priest (now-laicized), which was dismissed. And the lawyer who brought the case forward was sanctioned.

This has all been on the Internet for quite some time, so it’s not really breaking news. The cause of canonization would have known about this too, so I imagine they would have investigated it as part of the canonization process.
 
tseleehw said:
The most likely scenario is that Cardinal Dolan initiated this “delay”, and he probably did not have much trouble finding allies that would support his cause (I’m looking at Cardinals Cupich and Tobin, Bishop McElroy, and maybe Archbishop Gregory as the most likely suspects). The Pope and the Congregation for the Cause of Saints were probably happy to oblige. Archbishop Sheen is exactly the type of prelate that would be condemned by today’s Church as too “rigid”, “legalistic”, and “clericalist” and would be held in the same category as Cardinals Burke and Muller, i.e., persona non grata.
Click to expand...
I’m not entirely sure about that. While I’m certainly aware of the legal squabbles between New York and Peoria, I don’t think Cardinal Dolan is at the root of this. I’ve heard he’s a fan of Archbishop Sheen, so it’s hard for me to believe that he would want to block the beatification.

Now, Cardinal Cupich and others, I could possibly see. But that is speculation.

But Pope Francis was the one who originally approved the beatification in the first place, so I doubt he has now changed his mind to do everything to actively oppose it.
 
Last edited:
In all honesty, while I have my suspicions that New York is ultimately in back of this delay/derailment of Bishop Sheen’s beatification, I don’t think it’s some sort of sinister conspiracy by all the liberal-leaning Bishops to deny Sheen elevation to the altar because of his politics. Given how popular Sheen is in the wider American Catholic sphere, that could be seen as a bridge too far for them to try.

No, as others have said, I think if we ever get the truth, it’ll be something as mundane as New York throwing a monkeywrench into the proceedings out of jealousy. Jealousy that they didn’t end up getting the prestige and attention (and just as importantly the money that a shrine would bring in) stemming from the Canonization of and repose of the relics of St. Fulton Sheen (again, one of the more recognizable and popular American Catholic figures of living memory).

I’ll bet dollars to donuts that once details about the “further consideration” start to leak, they’ll focus on Sheen’s stated desire to be buried in New York and with claims that the court ruling awarding custody of his relics to Peoria was flawed, likely with announcement of an appeal of the ruling.

TL;DR – It’s not the usual partisan divide that likely caused the delay, but that the Archdiocese of New York just can’t take “no” for an answer.
 
Last edited:
Phil Luciano wrote an opinion piece for the Peoria Journal Star yesterday, that I suspect said that the New York Archdiocese was probably behind this latest delay, based on what Luciano generally posts on social media. As of this morning Phil’s column has been pulled and is even cleared out of the Google cache. Hmmmm.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
CTBcin said:
I’m not entirely sure about that. While I’m certainly aware of the legal squabbles between New York and Peoria, I don’t think Cardinal Dolan is at the root of this. I’ve heard he’s a fan of Archbishop Sheen, so it’s hard for me to believe that he would want to block the beatification.
Click to expand...
That was my thought as well. It’s rather pointless to speculate on which bishop(s) might have asked for this additional time. I do hope more info will be forthcoming, but we may never know. I really hope that it’s not some bishop being petty. I would hope that a successor to the apostles would be above such tactics.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Who besides Oscar Romero?
Click to expand...
I’m guessing Helder Camara being named a servant of God and the beatification of Enrique Angelelli–they would be the most controversial ones. Angelelli’s beatification was quick (opened in October 2015, beatified in June 2018 despite the controversy, including that surrounding his death).

There are also six or seven individuals Pope Francis has beatified as martyrs who were killed by right wing governments in Latin America whose activities might be associated with liberation theology.

In a lot of these cases there is gray area as to whether the person was killed in hatred of the faith or for political purposes or both.
 
Last edited:
Ok, I understand the political controversy, but when people are being beatified as martyrs and the only argument is perhaps over the motivations for them being killed, it’s not exactly a headlong rush to canonize people for espousing a particular theology. If they hadn’t been killed, they wouldn’t be getting beatified just on the basis of their theology.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Phil Luciano wrote an opinion piece for the Peoria Journal Star yesterday, that I suspect said that the New York Archdiocese was probably behind this latest delay, based on what Luciano generally posts on social media. As of this morning Phil’s column has been pulled and is even cleared out of the Google cache. Hmmmm.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the heads up. The article is still in the Journal Star’s website. It’s an interesting read.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top