Sheen beatification cause delayed again as New York archdiocese appeals decision to transfer remains [CWN]

[Bill_Martin]

I thought Dolan and Jenky already settled this: eyeofthetiber.com/2014/09/08/dolan-jenky-to-settle-dispute-over-sheen-remains-in-octagon/

 

[zz912]

More, from a close associate of Sheen’s. Part of his “household”

newsmax.com/Newsfront/archbishop-fulton-sheen-anniversary-death/2016/12/09/id/763188/

I’ve certainly got some questions after reading that article.

Is the Monsigner claiming that the Diocese of NY cannot move forward on their own with a canonization process b/c the Diocese of Peoria canonization process has stalled?

Why would the Diocese of Peoria spend millions of dollars to further the cause of a saint in another diocese if the remains and pilgrim spots were going to be in that other diocese?

Why hasn’t the Diocese of NY already started the canonization process?

Could the monsigner give an example of another diocese paying for and promoting the canonization of a saint in another diocese?

 

[dans0622]

Ordinarily, the diocese of Peoria would have had no business pursuing the cause since the competent diocese is the one where the person died:

“Art. 21 - § 1. The Bishop competent to instruct the diocesan or eparchial Inquiry into heroic virtues or martyrdom is the one in whose territory the Servant of God died.”

It’s possible for another diocese to take up a cause:

"Art. 22 - § 1. Upon the request of the Bishop who intends to initiate the cause, the Congregation can transfer competence to another ecclesiastical forum, that is, to another diocese or eparchy, for particular reasons (e.g., where the more important proofs are located or where the Servant of God spent the greater part of his life).

§ 2. The requesting Bishop must obtain the written consent of the competent Bishop."

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/csaints/documents/rc_con_csaints_doc_20070517_sanctorum-mater_en.html

I will note that these norms post-date the beginning of Archbishop Sheen’s cause being taken up by Peoria. However, the prior law was the same as far as the competent diocese being the one where the person died. Another diocese could take up the cause only by direction of the Congregation in Rome. I would suspect that the Congregation would not allow another diocese (Peoria) to initiate a process unless the competent diocese (New York) was first consulted.

For Peoria’s perspective, see here: cdop.org/2014/09/diocese-of-peoria-presents-additional-clarifications-regarding-the-suspension-of-the-archbishop-fulton-sheen-cause-of-sainthood/

Nobody here, least of all me, can really know all the facts. I again state my wish that the Holy See would make a decision and take all of this out of the civil courts.

Dan

 

[phil19034]

More, from a close associate of Sheen’s. Part of his “household”

newsmax.com/Newsfront/archbishop-fulton-sheen-anniversary-death/2016/12/09/id/763188/

There is one thing about this article that doesn’t make sense. Why didn’t the Archdiocese of New York start the process themselves? How and why was it started in Peoria?

It seems to me that AD of NY wasn’t willing or able to start the process and allowed Peoria to do it.

It’s natural that if Peoria was going to pay for the investigation that the main Shrine (including his body) should be located there.

To me it seems like now NY is trying to get out of paying for the investigation, yet receive all the financial benefits of having the shrine.

This is pretty much a scandal all around.

 

[Marie5890]

I again state my wish that the Holy See would make a decision and take all of this out of the civil courts.

Dan

Agree completely.

This should NOT be in the civil courts. Anything to get an ecclesial matter OUT of the SECULAR courts.

 

[Marie5890]

There is one thing about this article that doesn’t make sense. Why didn’t the Archdiocese of New York start the process themselves? How and why was it started in Peoria?

It seems to me that AD of NY wasn’t willing or able to start the process and allowed Peoria to do it.

It’s natural that if Peoria was going to pay for the investigation that the main Shrine (including his body) should be located there.

To me it seems like now NY is trying to get out of paying for the investigation, yet receive all the financial benefits of having the shrine.

This is pretty much a scandal all around.

I think the article was less about the who initiated the cause and more about what was Bph Sheen’s wishes as to where he would be buried.

According to this article by apparently someone very close to him, a member of his “household” for several decades, Sheen wanted to be buried in NY.

I think that was the point of the article, at least that is what I got: Sheen’s wishes.

 

[phil19034]

I think the article was less about the who initiated the cause and more about what was Bph Sheen’s wishes as to where he would be buried.

According to this article by apparently someone very close to him, a member of his “household” for several decades, Sheen wanted to be buried in NY.

I think that was the point of the article, at least that is what I got: Sheen’s wishes.

Right. So how did it wind up in this situation?

 

[M-Dent]

There is one thing about this article that doesn’t make sense. Why didn’t the Archdiocese of New York start the process themselves? How and why was it started in Peoria?

It seems to me that AD of NY wasn’t willing or able to start the process and allowed Peoria to do it.

It’s natural that if Peoria was going to pay for the investigation that the main Shrine (including his body) should be located there.

To me it seems like now NY is trying to get out of paying for the investigation, yet receive all the financial benefits of having the shrine.

This is pretty much a scandal all around.

I’m not sure what to think yet I find it as embarrassing as the Al Smith Dinner.

 

[zz912]

I think the article was less about the who initiated the cause and more about what was Bph Sheen’s wishes as to where he would be buried.

According to this article by apparently someone very close to him, a member of his “household” for several decades, Sheen wanted to be buried in NY.

I think that was the point of the article, at least that is what I got: Sheen’s wishes.

Well Abp Sheen’s wish was stated in his will, to be buried in Calvary Cemetery. And the article is a one-sided view of the issue. Here are a few interesting highlights from the judge’s decision on the matter: (note: petitioner is Abp Sheen’s niece, and respondent is the Archdiocese of NY)

When a man’s stated intention about his burial site is not followed because the parties involved in the burial believed he would have accepted an offer to be buried at a more prestigious location, how should a Court analyze an application for disinterment? This Court must consider petitioner’s justification for the requested disinterment and the basis of respondents’ refusal to consent. After reviewing the papers in this proceeding, the Court finds that petitioner has provided a good and substantial reason for moving the remains of the decedent, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen (Archbishop Sheen), to St. Mary’s Cathedral in Peoria, Illinois and that respondents failed to supply a sufficient reason to reject the instant application.

In 2002, Bishop Jenky of the Diocese of Peoria, Illinois began the process to explore whether Archbishop Sheen should be declared a Saint of the Roman Catholic Church. Petitioner claims that the Archdiocese of New York had no interest in this cause for canonization and **cites a letter from Cardinal Egan in 2002 suggesting that Peoria was the “ideal diocese” **to start the canonization process (see petition, exh A).

How did his remains end up in St. Patrick’s when his will directed burial in Calvary? According to petitioner, after her uncle’s death, she was approached by Cardinal Cooke, who asked petitioner for her permission to have Archbishop Sheen’s body interred in the crypt at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan. Notably, petitioner, as Archbishop Sheen’s closest living relative, was asked to make the ultimate decision regarding the location of Archbishop Sheen’s remains. Respondents admit that petitioner consented to Archbishop Sheen’s burial in St. Patrick’s Cathedral (answer of respondent #5). …But what is relevant to the instant proceeding is that this decision contravenes Archbishop Sheen’s will, that respondents suggested it and that** respondents, by Cardinal Cooke, sought petitioner’s permission**.

After giving that consent in 1979, petitioner now claims, universally supported by Archbishop Sheen’s family, that Archbishop Sheen should be moved to Peoria to support his own canonization process.

…However, the agreement demonstrates that respondents suggested and offered petitioner the opportunity to overlook the decedent’s written burial wishes and then gave petitioner the final say. Certainly, there is no evidence that, in 1979, respondents insisted on strictly enforcing Archbishop Sheen’s will.

 

[zz912]

More from the judge’s decision:

Respondents offer the affidavit of Msgr. Hilary C. Franco, who claims that Archbishop Sheen told him that Cardinal Cooke had offered to bury Archbishop Sheen at St. Patrick’s Cathedral. ** Critically, Msgr. Franco does not state that Archbishop Sheen wanted to be buried at St. Patrick’s**; Msgr Franco only claims that Archbishop Sheen told him that Cardinal Cooke had made the offer. If Archbishop Sheen knew he had an offer to be buried in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, then why did he state in his will, dated only five days before his death, that he wanted to be buried in Calvary?

…

There is no evidence to suggest that this proceeding is anything other than petitioner’s carefully considered request made with honest intentions. Petitioner noted her close relationship with Archbishop Sheen and recounts that she left her family in Illinois to be with her uncle in New York when she was just ten years old. Petitioner contends that Archbishop Sheen raised her as if she was his daughter. Further, petitioner does not stand to gain financially if the Court rules in her favor and, as she states in her affdavit, petitioner attempted to resolve this dispute before bringing this proceeding and derives no joy in suing respondents.

What is the basis of respondents’ objection?..respondents’ objection is based on unsupported speculation that decedent wanted his remains to stay in New York and that moving his remains to Illinois would contradict his wishes. But, as discussed above, Archbishop Sheen expressed a desire to be buried in Calvary Cemetery. Respondents’ claim that Archbishop Sheen expressed a general desire to be buried in New York is an unsupported conjecture.

…

When Archbishop Sheen passed away, respondents allowed petitioner to decide whether to change Archbishop Sheen’s burial location. In a similar fashion, this Court now defers to petitioner’s request.

 

[ctb95]

Well Abp Sheen’s wish was stated in his will, to be buried in Calvary Cemetery. And the article is a one-sided view of the issue. Here are a few interesting highlights from the judge’s decision on the matter: (note: petitioner is Abp Sheen’s niece, and respondent is the Archdiocese of NY)

When a man’s stated intention about his burial site is not followed because the parties involved in the burial believed he would have accepted an offer to be buried at a more prestigious location, how should a Court analyze an application for disinterment? This Court must consider petitioner’s justification for the requested disinterment and the basis of respondents’ refusal to consent. After reviewing the papers in this proceeding, the Court finds that petitioner has provided a good and substantial reason for moving the remains of the decedent, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen (Archbishop Sheen), to St. Mary’s Cathedral in Peoria, Illinois and that respondents failed to supply a sufficient reason to reject the instant application.

In 2002, Bishop Jenky of the Diocese of Peoria, Illinois began the process to explore whether Archbishop Sheen should be declared a Saint of the Roman Catholic Church. Petitioner claims that the Archdiocese of New York had no interest in this cause for canonization and **cites a letter from Cardinal Egan in 2002 suggesting that Peoria was the “ideal diocese” **to start the canonization process (see petition, exh A).

How did his remains end up in St. Patrick’s when his will directed burial in Calvary? According to petitioner, after her uncle’s death, she was approached by Cardinal Cooke, who asked petitioner for her permission to have Archbishop Sheen’s body interred in the crypt at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan. Notably, petitioner, as Archbishop Sheen’s closest living relative, was asked to make the ultimate decision regarding the location of Archbishop Sheen’s remains. Respondents admit that petitioner consented to Archbishop Sheen’s burial in St. Patrick’s Cathedral (answer of respondent #5). …But what is relevant to the instant proceeding is that this decision contravenes Archbishop Sheen’s will, that respondents suggested it and that** respondents, by Cardinal Cooke, sought petitioner’s permission**.

After giving that consent in 1979, petitioner now claims, universally supported by Archbishop Sheen’s family, that Archbishop Sheen should be moved to Peoria to support his own canonization process.

…However, the agreement demonstrates that respondents suggested and offered petitioner the opportunity to overlook the decedent’s written burial wishes and then gave petitioner the final say. Certainly, there is no evidence that, in 1979, respondents insisted on strictly enforcing Archbishop Sheen’s will.

And yet the archdiocese is appealing. Ridiculous.

 

[Marie5890]

I hate that it’s in the secular courts.

Bad precedence moving forward when it comes to eleccsial matters.

Decisions that have to do with the Kingdom of God should remain in His kingdom, IMO.