FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Is anybody here against the canonization of Bishop Sheen?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
I also think that he found it difficult to be a party to a public scandal by questioning something promulgated by the Holy Father. That's a bitter cross for any of us but how much more so when one is his age. I prefer to look at all of the good  that he did. God only required perfection of one Man (and look what happened to Him!).
I recently found this link of Bishop Sheen's grave (located in Saint Patricks Cathedral) inscribed are the words "Servant of God" on the top left.

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=947&PIpi=8652806
I feel obligated, as one who has first hand knowledge, to mention that when Bishop Sheen was bishop of Rochester, NY diocese, he handled at least one case ( if not more)  of clergy abuse in a way that was totally inappropriate and unwise.
He resigned as bishop of the diocese shortly after and quite unexpectedly.  This may eventually be discovered during the process of inquiry.
You need to fill us in, it's going to drive me crazy due to the vagueness of the assertion.

Are we talking inappropriate in that it wasn't the correct thing to do, or are we talking inappropriate in that he was conniving with sexual predators?  Did he try and persecute the person making the accusation and their family? 

I'm guessing, he had the priest moved but didn't push for his being defrocked and charged publicly as a criminal. 

One is beyond horrific in my eyes and the other is slightly more understandable because of the times and the Bishop's age and a misguided belief that the situation could be handled well by the Church. 



(09-26-2009, 09:59 AM)gj Wrote: [ -> ]I feel obligated, as one who has first hand knowledge, to mention that when Bishop Sheen was bishop of Rochester, NY diocese, he handled at least one case ( if not more)  of clergy abuse in a way that was totally inappropriate and unwise.
He resigned as bishop of the diocese shortly after and quite unexpectedly.  This may eventually discovered during the process of inquiry.
Inappropriate and unwise by today's standards, or the standards of the time? There was a time when physicians thought bloodletting was appropriate medical treatment. We now know they are completely wrong. 40 years ago, even psychologists thought pedophiles could be reformed.

And I read somewhere that his resignation was because he was a lousy administrator and ran the diocese deep into debt.
We all have different gifts; Abp Sheen's was teaching. Just because he did other things badly doesn't mean he was bad.   
(09-24-2009, 04:53 PM)OCLittleFlower Wrote: [ -> ]From the sounds of it, having two investigations is better because no one has a conflict of interest.  But then, I think the general "everyone goes to heaven" midset has taken over a bit, and caused even the Vatican to be willing to loosen the requirements for sainthood.

The Devil's advocate is at least what I was getting at, as well as the miracle verification (not just the number of miracles, but the bar on these has changed as well!). In fact, the Devil's Advocate is in fact why Origen is not 'Saint' Origen.

And yes, the 'everyone goes to heaven' mindset is my concern in this change.

Admittedly, 'canonization' wasn't an official process as I understand it, but was somewhat by 'popular opinion,' not being formalized until John XV (I should look this up!). Also, JPII's changes were not the only changes to this thousand-year old process, merely the most recent.

Back to Origen again, this is a sterling example of a case where one may in fact be in Heaven, but not one to pattern one's life after, as has already been brought up.

When a Saint is canonized, the Church is infallibly declaring with Its authority, guided by the Holy Spirit, that said person is in Heaven, so we are bound as obedient Catholics to accept canonizations. However, due to the gravity of such a statement, this is not to be done lightly (not that I think the Church does do so 'lightly'), but rather I'm saying that doing so holds up this person as an example. Would Augustine be a good example if he repeatedly and publicly 'relapsed' into his former hedonistic life dozens of times? No. Would that mean he couldn't have ended up in Heaven even if he had done so? No, of course God's mercy is endless and mysterious, and we would have no idea, without the Church, where his heart was with God in his last moments, but it would be a dangerous example to point to.
(09-26-2009, 09:59 AM)gj Wrote: [ -> ]I feel obligated, as one who has first hand knowledge, to mention that when Bishop Sheen was bishop of Rochester, NY diocese, he handled at least one case ( if not more)  of clergy abuse in a way that was totally inappropriate and unwise.
He resigned as bishop of the diocese shortly after and quite unexpectedly.  This may eventually discovered during the process of inquiry.

Unless you can back it up, it's simply the sin of calumny/
Very interesting bit on the Promotor Fidei (popularly known as the "Devil's Advocate")

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01168b.htm
Quote:A popular title given to one of the most important officers of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, established in 1587, by Sixtus V, to deal juridically with processes of beatification and canonization. His official title is Promoter of the Faith (Promotor Fidei). His duty requires him to prepare in writing all possible arguments, even at times seemingly slight, against the raising of any one to thehonours of the altar. The interest and honour of the Church are concerned in preventing any one from receiving those honours whose death is not juridically proved to have been "precious in the sight of God" (see BEATIFICATION and CANONIZATION). Prospero Lamertini, afterwards Pope Benedict XIV (1740-58), was the Promoter of the Faith for twenty years, and had every opportunity to study the workings of the Church in this most important function; he was, therefore, peculiarly qualified to compose his monumental work "On the Beatification and Canonization of Saints," which contains the complete vindication of the rights of the Church in this matter, and sets forth historically its extreme care of the use of this right. No important act in the process of beatification or canonization is valid unless performed in the presence of the Promoter of the Faith formally recognized. His duty is to protest against the omission of the forms laid down, and to insist upon the consideration of any objection. The first formal mention of such an officer is found in the canonization of St. Lawrence Justinian under Leo X (1513-21). Urban VIII, in 1631, made his presence necessary, at least by deputy, for the validity of any act connected with the process of beatification or canonization.
(09-28-2009, 03:41 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-26-2009, 09:59 AM)gj Wrote: [ -> ]I feel obligated, as one who has first hand knowledge, to mention that when Bishop Sheen was bishop of Rochester, NY diocese, he handled at least one case ( if not more)  of clergy abuse in a way that was totally inappropriate and unwise.
He resigned as bishop of the diocese shortly after and quite unexpectedly.  This may eventually discovered during the process of inquiry.

Unless you can back it up, it's simply the sin of calumny/

It would depend on what is meant by 'first hand knowledge' would it not? If he knew this information himself, not as hearsay, would it be calumny since in such a (theoretical) case he would know if to be true?

For example, if I saw you steal a candy bar at the store, would it be calumny to refer to you as a thief?
I doubt it.
Pages: 1 2 3 4