PhuturePriest Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 I remember when JPII was up for canonization and people were complaining that it was "too quick" and they should slow down or something. If it's not one thing, it's another.... Fulton Sheen died many, many years ago. I don't think that argument is valid here. :P However, it makes no sense that New York wouldn't let them send the body back when it already agreed to. There's either something we don't know, or the Diocese of New York is being very greedy and petty and should be ashamed of itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veritasluxmea Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Fulton Sheen died many, many years ago. I don't think that argument is valid here. :P However, it makes no sense that New York wouldn't let them send the body back when it already agreed to. There's either something we don't know, or the Diocese of New York is being very greedy and petty and should be ashamed of itself. Meh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oremoose Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Fulton Sheen died many, many years ago. I don't think that argument is valid here. :P However, it makes no sense that New York wouldn't let them send the body back when it already agreed to. There's either something we don't know, or the Diocese of New York is being very greedy and petty and should be ashamed of itself. I thought bishops were laid to rest in the diocese they served. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 I thought bishops were laid to rest in the diocese they served. That might be the case, but they agreed to send the body back to Peoria and went back on their word. That's the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Aha. We now have an explanation as to what the issue is. Thankfully, it is not petty Church politics of who gets the body, but respecting the wishes of Fulton Sheen, whom stated he wanted his body to be left in New York. Now, this is still an issue, because the Diocese of New York was originally permissive to moving the body and went back on its word, but at least there is a rational explanation as to the sudden change of mind. http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/3349/Archdiocese_of_New_York_releases_statement_on_Abp_Sheen_controversy.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 I understand that the ultimate resting place of his remains is a matter of some importance, but I fail to see how a reasonable dispute on the matter could possibly lead to the entire cause being halted. Seems like a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 I understand that the ultimate resting place of his remains is a matter of some importance, but I fail to see how a reasonable dispute on the matter could possibly lead to the entire cause being halted. Seems like a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Indeed. I see no reason for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthfinder Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Nihil, from what I read surmising on the subject, archiving the cause might be a form of brinkmanship. However, so is the release from NY saying they were ok with the move but not a "dismemberment" of Sheen's body for relics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Ryan Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Unfortunately, his cause seems to be mired in they very contentious greater theological debate around liberation theology. Maybe when the theological debates are over, his cause will move forward. I want both their causes to move! Yes, I think that the Venerable Sheen is perhaps less controversial. I am not that knowledgeable on Father Sheen, however. Is there anything controversial in his teachings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Ryan Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Unfortunately, his cause seems to be mired in they very contentious greater theological debate around liberation theology. Maybe when the theological debates are over, his cause will move forward. I want both their causes to move! Yes, I think that the Venerable Sheen is perhaps less controversial. I am not that knowledgeable on Father Sheen, however. Is there anything controversial in his teachings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo in Deum Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 His teachings are the Church's teachings, so Ven. Fulton Sheen is very controversial for any Catholic not living their faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Ryan Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 His teachings are the Church's teachings, so Ven. Fulton Sheen is very controversial for any Catholic not living their faith. You, my brothers and sisters (especially Lefebvre) have made me very respectful towards traditionalism and the Magisterium of the Church, even if I am heretical on matters of human sexuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oremoose Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 I understand that the ultimate resting place of his remains is a matter of some importance, but I fail to see how a reasonable dispute on the matter could possibly lead to the entire cause being halted. Seems like a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Would we be able to cause enough of an uproar and get him canonized or at least beatified St.Thomas becket style? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Archbishop Ven. Sheen was a faithful servant of the Church, he would willingly give up his own wants for the greater good of the Church. I don't believe he would be totally against his body being moved if it were for such a good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Would we be able to cause enough of an uproar and get him canonized or at least beatified St.Thomas becket style? I should think we have the right to, prudently and respectfully, apply some pressure to the appropriate entities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now