Loading ...
I just received a letter from the Friends of Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen Foundation informing me that they hope to finish gathering evidence about Archbishop Sheen by the end the of this year, with the intention of making a presentation to the Congregation for the Causes of All Saints for the canonization of Archbishop Sheen. I am further told that there will be a special Mass on Sunday, February 3, 2008, at the Cathedral of Saint Mary of the Immaculate Conception in Peoria, Illinois. Here the documents collected on Archbishop Sheen’s behalf will be certified in the ceremony of the Postrema Session, after which all will be forwarded to the offices of the Pope.
I have been (so I gather) a Friend of Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen since the time about three years ago when I gave a sum of money (quite a small one) to the organization to support their efforts to send wartime prayer books to soldiers in Iraq. I don’t believe I’ve ever done anything else for them, but I continue to receive letters and aid requests. I am certainly pleased to be identified as a Friend of Archbishop Sheen, having nothing but warm feelings towards that great soldier and leader of men. His book on marriage is, in my opinion, particularly excellent. And I am not inclined to think any ill of this society, since I tend to suppose that any organization that admires Archbishop Sheen so much is probably doing much more good than harm. However, I am of two minds about their central initiative. I have no fears for the good Archbishop’s soul, and I hope that there will one day be a St. Fulton Sheen. But after all, he has been dead for less than thirty years yet. Is it perhaps too soon to be agitating for canonization?
I know that many others share my concern. On one level, it seems churlish to protest that too many people are canonized when of course saints are a happy thing for all involved. At the same time, there is an argument for caution. Without questioning the canonization process per se I think I can faithfully observe that the public attitude towards a particular person tends to change over time. Some of today’s heroes will be remembered a millennium hence (assuming the world is going to continue for that long, of course.) Others will be forgotten fifty years from now. One might think that the canonization of a particular person ought to mark, not just that they are in heaven (since there are presumably lots of people in heaven who have not been canonized, and whose cases nobody is considering) but that they stand as an instructive example to the members of the Church Militant, and that they have left some sort of lasting legacy which makes their canonization appropriate. It’s always difficult to say that about a particular person until you have seen how the memory of their life affects the faithful in a century or two.
The fast-tracked canonization process may also contribute to the downplaying of tradition. When the number of canonized saints increases drastically over time, people are apt to get the idea that the Church is getting steadily more virtuous, and that the most noteworthy time in Catholic history has been the last century or two. Needless to say, this would be foolish. With all respect to saints like Maximillion Kolbe and Gianna Beretta Molla, I still think we should pay more attention to St. Francis of Assisi or St. Edmund Campion.
On the other hand, there’s something to be said for modern heroes — we do need some, and speeding up the canonization process allows us to have certified “positive exemplars” who were more directly responsive to the precise tribulations that we ourselves must still face. For example, if a four hundred year waiting period were a necessary precondition to sainthood, there would be virtually no American saints. And very few of the great foes of modernism would be presently recognized as saints, if the process moved as slowly as it once did. I sympathize with that point too, which is why I can’t feel too terribly irate towards people who push for the more rapid canonization of these more modern warriors. Perhaps we need saints more badly now than Catholics of ages past, as the world and the Church in particular are propelled into ever-more-rapidly changing times?
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Clara,
I feel the same as most other serious thinkers about the hordes of new saints that John Paul II rushed through. But I may feel differently than many younger folks about Bishop Sheen, a hero to many older folks who remained faithful despite the misfortune of adult Catholic lifetimes that coincided with Vatican II and its 40-year aftermath.
And certainly to those many converts of 30 to 40 years ago whose exhilarating discovery of Catholicism was illuminated by wonderful books like his “This is the Mass” that told plain but exciting truths with a straightforward eloquence seldom heard in the Church since then.
All of which is, of course, objectively irrelevant to his cause for sainthood. But how can anyone fail to be beguiled by his incomparable narration of “The Immemorial Tridentine Mass”, the extraordinary (and perhaps first) solemn high Mass video filmed on Easter 1940 at Our Lady of Sorrows Church in Chicago, in which he delivered the unforgettable line (true at the time) that
“It is a long-established principle of the Church never to completely drop from her public worship any ceremony, object, or prayer which once occupied a place in that worship.”
It would never have occurred to a Catholic of that era that a later generation might see supreme irony in a statement that then sounded so unremarkable and self-evident.
PS. If you haven’t seen this video, Clara, let me know and I’ll bring the DVD to Mass with me Sunday.
Thank you for that remark… and actually, I think the considerations you mention may really be relevant to the case for Archbishop Sheen’s canonization. Again, I’m assuming that the Church should seek to canonize, not everyone she can certifiably say is in heaven, but only those whose canonization will help strengthen the Church Militant. If he was indeed such a leading light to so many in a dark hour, that might show that he qualifies as one such.
And of course, one can quite consistently say that 1) there have been too many canonizations lately, but 2) Archbishop Sheen should nonetheless be among them. And that may well be the case. Don’t get me wrong… I obviously don’t have any memories of him from his own lifetime, but I also have a great fondness for him. The stories from his life, and those of his writings that I have read, are wonderful. The Doctor and I between ourselves sometimes refer to him as “Uncle Fulton”, which could be seen as mildly irreverent, but we certainly mean no disrespect — his tone always just seems so avuncular, very much in a good way. For both of us I think he just stands as such an excellent example of the joy that a person can have in being Catholic. And you’re quite right: he explains the faith plainly, but at the same time makes it seem so exciting and rich. Which of course it is! Theoretical worries notwithstanding, I will certainly celebrate it as a happy occasion if Archbishop Sheen is canonized within my lifetime.
I haven’t seen the video you mention, and it sounds well worth watching. (Though I may or may not be at Mass on Sunday… the Doctor and I may still be out of town for Thanksgiving.) But certainly, if you’re willing to lend it to us sometime soon, we’d enjoy that very much!
The agitation for Archbishop Sheen’s canonization is always of interest to those of us who had the misfortune of living in Western NY diocese he governed briefly 1966-1969. Were the policies and people he promoted in anyway responsible for the tragic state of that diocese now? Certainly questions that must be answered before he is held up for emulation.
Bill Mooney
Yes, Bill. Didn’t he have kind of a wild time there for a while with Social Justice. I heard he gave away a church to a black evangelical group while in Rochester. Maybe it’s just a rumor. He definitely became stronger and more traditional in the end. You can hear it in his tapes.
Clara,
Not to be contrary, but I think there a few points that need to be examined. First, it should be noted that St. Francis of Assisi was canonized by Pope Gregory IX in less than two years after his death. So, while I share your hesitation for speedy canonizations, I think the issue lies not with time, but with the modern process. The abolition of the “Devil’s Advocate” by the late Holy Father is the real concern for worry. The question is not, are there too many saints. The question is, due to the new process of canonization, while we must assert that this person is in Heaven, is it possible that canonization does not necessarily guarantee heroic virtue?
Yes, but “is it possible that canonizaton does not necessarily guarantee heroic virtue” makes rather an awkward title for a blog post, wouldn’t you say?
It certainly is an akward title for a blog post, and I wasn’t suggesting that you use it as such. I was merely pointing out that the thrust of your argument didn’t address it. Your argument specifically dealt with the point of speedy canonizations, which I was merely pointing out, isn’t the problem.
Melchior Cano,
Okay, I’ll half-grant your point, but I think I made it clear in my post what the real issue was. But I’ll accept this modification: IN MOST CASES it’s best to wait for the passage of some time before concluding that a person demonstrated heroic virtue AND had a significant impact on the Church. In a few extraordinary cases, it may be pretty obvious such that the wait might not seem necessary. As the first stigmatist, and just a thoroughly extraordinary man from every angle, St. Francis of Assisi was surely one of the exceptional cases.
“IN MOST CASES it’s best to wait for the passage of some time before concluding that a person demonstrated heroic virtue AND had a significant impact on the Church.”
That’s clearly NOT the case for the first part of your statement. Witnesses will be harder to find as time goes by. That’s why historically the Church required more miracles for the beatification of confessors where there wasn’t direct testimony, but only hearsay.
As for the second part “signifigant impact” I don’t see any traditional warrant for that being a concern of the process. What was the historical impact of say St. Rose of Lima or of the early Christian martyrs like Anastasia, of whom no signifigant deeds other than their martyrdom have come down to us?
As for Sheen in Rochester, he was apparently not a very good administrator, but at least some of the opposition he faced must be laid at the feet of the race relations problems in Rochester. Sheen met opposition for challenging the racisim that existed there… He may not have picked the right responses to take, but the opposition was, as far as I can tell, significantly motivated by racism and not just dissagreement about what policies to undertake.
The Church, btw, was to be given to the federal government… this was all part of a housing program.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,840832,00.html?iid=chix-sphere
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,901584,00.html
Sheen is not remembered fondly in Rochester by the current leadership there… and since they’re not unhappy with the “renewed” state of the diocese if he was responsible for it, they wouldn’t hesitate to claim him.
Henry Edwards: “hordes of new saints that John Paul II rushed through”
Of the 462 saints that Pope John Paul II canonized during his pontificate,
399 were martyrs, canonized in groups, mostly Asian. That’s about 86%.
I was always taught that martyrdom was often “automatic sainthood.”
Although the Romans were very skilled at mass killings, modern technology
has aided others in “multiple martyrdoms.”
And the Vatican hasn’t even begun to canonize the victims of the Armenian,
Bolshevik, Spanish, Soviet, Jewish, Polish, Nazi, Chinese, Cambodian and other
20th Century holocausts?
Just what is so offensive about the Church designating people, as being worthy
as having given their lives for Jesus Christ. Technically speaking, “canonization”
is an “infallible” action by the Pope and as such Catholics must treat it as so.
And, I understand that canonizing someone two days after their death with no research
into their life would be irresponsible. But the Church does not do that.
Ray makes an excellent point about the proportions of martyrs within the ranks of those canonized by John Paul II. Thanks for the stats. There were tons of martyrdoms over the last three centuries and the Church only now has caught up with them. Heck, the Forty English Martyrs didn’t get recognized till the reign of Pope Paul VI, about three hundred years after the last one died. In the days before formal canonizations, they may well have been honored publically as saints as soon as they had been martyred.
Though I don’t think there will be too many more saints added to the Church calendar from the Jewish holocaust at least, seeing as most of the victims were outside of the Church (St. Theresa Benedicta of the Cross and her sister being exceptions that prove the rule).
We should add the Mexican persecutions to the list, too.
T.P.
Have you forgotten about the 3,000,000 Polish Catholics who died in concentration camps (in addition to the 3,000,000 Polish Jews), or more likely, their own back yards?
I don’t have the numbers for other European Catholics who died under the Nazis, nor Asian Catholics who died under the Red Chinese.
Leave some room on the Calendar of the Saints, please.