Author Topic: Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen - process for beatification (Read 1065 times)

Neil Obstat · « **on:** December 14, 2012, 01:54:07 AM »

This subject came up in the other sub-forum and looks like a different topic
so here's a thread to discuss it on its own merits........

Source Thread

Quote from: Skunkwurxsspx

Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant
The sermons here have been very edifying lately, but not one word about Bishop Williamson, nor any comments about the dangers or errors of Vat 2. Not for almost year, I think.

Dear 1st Mansion Tenant,

I think we attend the same chapel, if memory serves. The sermon on Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen (ABS . . . not to be confused with anti-lock brakes!) on Sunday, though quite interesting to hear, left me somewhat confused and, I must admit, a bit disturbed--especially when Father seemed to speak approvingly of the cause for his (ABS') beatification.

My confusion is no doubt in some part due to my not knowing a whole lot about ABS. I do know that he authored many excellent, inspirational spiritual works prior to the Council and that he pioneered the use of radio and television to teach the Catholic Faith. Yet, I also know that ABS went along with the changes of Vatican II and went so far as to call it "the work of the Holy Spirit."

I have no reason to believe that ABS was a "bad" individual on a mission to purposely destroy the Church a la Bugnini, but I think the evident lapse in judgment over a disaster as gapingly horrendous as Vatican II cannot be overlooked--especially as it relates to his possible beatification.

To be honest, I was literally dumbfounded when Father actually spoke favorably of the possibility of ABS' beatification during the Sunday sermon (given what I knew of ABS--a knowledge base admittedly not complete, in all fairness). If I am correct in thinking that ABS was a passionate proponent of Vatican II, would I not be correct in assuming that an approbation of his beatification is an implicit approval of ABS' stand on the Council?

I remember a time when the Angelus Press started promoting select titles by ABS, all the while providing a wise caveat in small print regarding ABS' subsequent leanings toward Vatican II. That warning has now completely disappeared. In fact, it has quietly disappeared for quite some time now. I got the same sense of a gaping omission when Father made absolutely no mention of ABS' later conciliar positions.

Any insight into this would be greatly appreciated! God bless!

A few years ago I read about a report of a person who met Bishop Sheen
on a public commuter train, in New York as I recall. He said that +Sheen
did not appear well, and seemed to be a bit sad, but he was grateful that
someone was kind enough to have a conversation with him. My
impression was that it seemed ironic that someone who was well-known
over the world's TV audience would find himself largely unrecognized in his
later years.

If I am not mistaken, +Sheen only had a few more months to live at that
time. Normally, we would like to have some official or at least credible
interview, like with Bernard Janzen or Stephen Heiner, but here, we may
have to rely on a chance meeting with a stranger on a public train! A
rather cryptic vignette of a famous life, if ever there was one! And yet,
if he had had a more quotable event, perhaps his cause would not now
be making as much progress.. Hmmm? ...............

In their conversation (which I cannot verify now because I am going on
memory alone) +Sheen stated that he had come to regret his support of
Vat.II and the innovations that ensued in its wake. And it seemed that
there was a note of perception he had acquired, since Rome and the
local ordinaries in America no longer gave him any respect, as if he felt
that he had been useful for as long as he was supportive, but now that
he has something less enthusiastic to say in retrospect, that he was no
longer of any use for them; and so, he was learning what it is like to be
cast aside like yesterday's newspaper or worn-out clothing, a vestige of
the past that is no longer "new" and, therefore, contemptible or at
least forgettable, in our materialistic society. It is rather a fate that is
quite natural for humans, as for many it is a great fear that their children
will no longer remember or care for them in their dotage.

Hearing now of this effort to beatify him, it seems a bit ironic, that what
they are going by may have nothing to do with his objective holiness,
for, it would seem to me that such holiness would be tied to his
rejection of Vatican II in his later years (if that is what happened actually)
and not his lack of published commentary critical of it. That is to say, that
while he may become beatified, it would not be because he had turned
away from the Conciliar errors (a mark of true holiness due to conversion)
but because his memory is now somehow useful for the post-Conciliar
agenda of advancing innovations in the new religion!

Skunkwurxsspx · « **Reply #1 on:** December 14, 2012, 10:08:58 AM »

Dear Neil Obstat,

Thank you for that thoughtfully written piece. If that account is indeed accurate, what a tragic thing to happen to so great a man (at least from the human point of view). What does ring true is the "M.O. of the N.O.," so to speak. Once you turn your back on the Council, that's it! You're a "zealot," a "kook," an "extremist," a "fanatic," a "this," or a "that" . . . you know the drill.

But true to one of the sermons of ABS, and a rather profound one at that, the very worst is the consignment to irrelevance . . . the "apathy" and the silent marginalization. ABS once said that the overt adversity Christ suffered on Calvary was arguably "less" of a trial in a sense than the cold apathy with which He is now treated by the modern world. The account that you relate seems to suggest a taste of those prophet words that ABS once spoke regarding Our Lord.

Hope things are well. God bless and thank you!

Anthony Benedict · « **Reply #2 on:** December 14, 2012, 02:37:13 PM »

What I have read and heard about Abp. Sheen is quite mixed, and if I may offer one explanation it would come down to the phenomenon of notoriety.

Famous people can do some pretty strange things, according to OTHER PEOPLE - not so famous - who would like their audience to think THEM not strange at all!

Abp. Sheen became a celebrity, in the course of which, he managed to impart some sound advice to Catholics and others. What else? I dunno. I've heard reports, pro and con. They remain that, reports.

Whether he became a VatII groupie or died a broken man, I have no idea. I suspect some reports of the conciliarist inclination may have some truth in them.

I was never a fan, even when all kinds of people around me were.

But I do know he advocated strongly for priestly adoration, daily, and that alone is enough to secure some hope that he ended his life well and had built some treasury of merit out of his long service in Holy Orders.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #3 on:** December 16, 2012, 08:33:46 PM »

Quote from: Skunkwurxsspx

Dear Neil Obstat,

Thank you for that thoughtfully written piece. If that account is indeed accurate, what a tragic thing to happen to so great a man (at least from the human point of view). What does ring true is the "M.O. of the N.O.," so to speak. Once you turn your back on the Council, that's it! You're a "zealot," a "kook," an "extremist," a "fanatic," a "this," or a "that" . . . you know the drill.

But true to one of the sermons of ABS, and a rather profound one at that, the very worst is the consignment to irrelevance . . . the "apathy" and the silent marginalization. ABS once said that the overt adversity Christ suffered on Calvary was arguably "less" of a trial in a sense than the cold apathy with which He is now treated by the modern world. The account that you relate seems to suggest a taste of those prophet words that ABS once spoke regarding Our Lord.

Hope things are well. God bless and thank you!

You're welcome, Skunkwurxsspx. I'm glad to see you found the thread.
I'm not claiming to be an expert on this, but hopefully someone here who
knows something more can post some info. I don't have much confidence
in the process of his cause to come up with all the relevant facts. They are
in the habit of discounting items that could be of great interest, on the
basis that they're too extreme or whatever. Plus, without the Devil's
Advocate, who knows how much contradiction there is to the "signs of
virtue" or holiness that will be allowed in his cause?

+Sheen wrote some powerful stuff, no doubt. Some find it very inspirational,
others say it's "too much." For example, have you ever read, or heard
it dramatically read, his "Seven Last Words?" I have known several
people who cannot bear to hear it.

Well, you know, some are saying that Fr. Pfeiffer's sermons are "too much,"
too, so that attitude is still with us. I know and have known several
adults who care nothing for any good sermon, and they deliberately get
up and leave the room while the sermon is being given, then come back
in when it's finished! In the days of St. John Chrysostom, some thought
he was "too much" too.

That's the basis of Jansenism: "Nothing too much - don't go overboard."

My biggest problem is that he was in a position where he could have done
a lot more for Tradition if he had only resisted the changes. It's hard to
know what would have been right for someone else, you know? If
nothing else, his notoriety may have been an obstacle for him, such that
he may have been a little more concerned with his public image than he
was with protecting the traditions he had received, and if so, that would
have been a serious error on his part. He should have known better.

Quote from: Anthony Benedict

What I have read and heard about Abp. Sheen is quite mixed, and if I may offer one explanation it would come down to the phenomenon of notoriety.

Famous people can do some pretty strange things, according to OTHER PEOPLE - not so famous - who would like their audience to think THEM not strange at all!

While that may be true in general, unless you have something specific in
the case of +Sheen, it isn't really fair to suggest this was the case with
him, unless you can show some examples.

Quote

Abp. Sheen became a celebrity, in the course of which, he managed to impart some sound advice to Catholics and others. What else? I dunno. I've heard reports, pro and con. They remain that, reports.

I don't think anyone can seriously doubt that +Sheen had an impact on
the lives of millions of people who would otherwise have had no idea
what the Church taught on any number of topics about which he spoke
in great detail on national TV.. The Jєωs hated his show, but it went on
anyway. Not that he spoke out against them, but just that he was giving
air to Catholic doctrine and the Jєωs were miserable hearing it, just as
they didn't want to hear what St. Stephen had to say, so they hauled him
out and stoned him. But today, they knew that they could not make of
+Sheen a martyr because then his message would become all the more
powerful, so they let him waste away, apparently, which was a more
cruel and profitable suppression. See how that works?

Quote

Whether he became a VatII groupie or died a broken man, I have no idea. I suspect some reports of the conciliarist inclination may have some truth in them.

As I explained, I heard that as his message and attitude started to turn
away from the Council seeing in retrospect the bad fruits of it (they are
plain as day for anyone who honestly looks at the data), the MSM and
the Conciliar prelates began to ignore him. And I don't think you even
need to find any "smoking gun" of orders given or a paper trail of evidence
that proves there was a movement out to shut him down. All you need to
see is that he was quickly taken out of the public eye.

It seems to me that he made a mistake not teaming up with +ABL, but
I have no data to support that.

Quote

I was never a fan, even when all kinds of people around me were.

But I do know he advocated strongly for priestly adoration, daily, and that alone is enough to secure some hope that he ended his life well and had built some treasury of merit out of his long service in Holy Orders.

Yes, he was a major proponent of Eucharistic Adoration. He said on a
number of occasions that the time he had spent alone, quiet, giving all
his attention to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament was by far more
educational and beneficial for him than any other activity he had ever
engaged in. An that is a very courageous thing to say in our modern
and faithless world. I'm sure that one message alone counted as a major
concern at his own particular judgment.

One of the images they used for a leader in his TV program was a picture
of him, in full archbishop's attire, by which I mean a robe and a skull cap
and his pectoral cross and ring, kneeling on a prie-dieu in silence before
a monstrance on the altar. They had a diaphanous curtain there to make
it seem like you were peeking into a private room.. It seemed like he
must have spent a lot of time just like that. The image alone is a
testament to the principle.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #4 on:** December 16, 2012, 09:07:43 PM »

Quote from: Skunkwurxsspx

...What does ring true is the "M.O. of the N.O.," so to speak. Once you turn your back on the Council, that's it! You're a "zealot," a "kook," an "extremist," a "fanatic," a "this," or a "that" . . . you know the drill. ...

Regarding this thing in particular, this is the fate that +Fellay faces in the
not-too distant future, once the Conciliarists get what they want out of
him. And that goes for the whole train of copy-cats under him. After they
have what they want, all these guys will be tossed out like their expiration
date has passed.. their "use before" date. You know, like a box of cereal
or a can of tomato paste.

Here he is tossing out good priests who don't agree with him, and that is
exactly what's going to happen to him: he'll get tossed out too, even after
he's done all the dirty work. And then he could go to hell besides, after all
that, for the damage he's done to souls in the process. I have no doubt
that a number of erstwhile faithful are giving up on religion after what's
been going on, because it really stinks. But that's a different topic, really.

I'd like to think that Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen somehow got his act
together before it was too late, and offered his dying agony as reparation
for his sins. I'd like to think that he died in the state of grace.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #5 on:** January 03, 2013, 03:52:36 AM »

Has anyone seen any news about Sheen's cause moving ahead?