Wouldn’t it be better for the Vatican to come clean on its canonization processes today?
And what is the point of a beatification? And why are these now local rather than at the Vatican? Why not just skip beatification after one is named venerable and go directly to canonization and at the Vatican?
PRESS TITLE FOR ARTICLE:
This presentation by Venerable Sheen tells us much about the Church of the 1970 and her issues then. These same issues have arisen again from a nostalgia for the 70’s by very aging clergy whose heyday was then.
After warming up his audience with some humor. Venerable Sheen offers an excellent presentation on the diabolical:
And what is the point of a beatification? And why are these now local rather than at the Vatican? Why not just skip beatification after one is named venerable and go directly to canonization and at the Vatican?
PRESS TITLE FOR ARTICLE:
After warming up his audience with some humor. Venerable Sheen offers an excellent presentation on the diabolical:
5 comments:
From the article: "After Pennsylvania, it would be foolish not to consider the possibility that accusations — false or taken out of context — would have to be answered. And a beatification is not the time to answer them."
Indeed.
"Wouldn’t it be better for the Vatican to come clean on its canonization processes today?"
The process is "clean" as it stands. Some are concerned that the manner in which the process is implemented is fraught with complexities that cannot be foreseen from the start. Some opine that the speed of the process is too rapid or that too many people are being nominated and approved for canonization.
"And what is the point of a beatification? And why are these now local rather than at the Vatican? Why not just skip beatification after one is named venerable and go directly to canonization and at the Vatican?"
The beatification-before-canonization is a worthwhile, I think, mid-process pause. The requirement of a second miracle can be waived, but this may not be the best course of action.
In the not so distant past, we did not have pages and pages of written evidence that had to be reviewed and considered. (A few years back I read Robert Caro's four volume of LBJ. A fifth volume, the last, in in the works. The vast amount of material available to the biographer of LBJ should be contrasted with what might be available to someone writing a biography of, say, Martin Van Buren.) In the "modern" age, we do have, in many cases, massive compilations of data that should be carefully examined.
So, the process, though clean, is complex.
Figures you would read the 4 volume biography of charlatan, LBJ, perhaps the most corrupt and cynical political figure in modern US history. You bring your Abortion Party politics into so many of your posts. Is there a message there?
He's not the 'Venerable Sheen'. He is the Venerable Peter John Fulton Sheen. You wouldn't refer to St John Henry Newman as 'St Newman', would you?
Father McDonald,
Here is an interesting article on the Archbishop Sheen canonization debacle:
"Under this lax and political pontificate, almost everything in the Church looks arbitrary and slipshod, including canonizations, which Pope Francis has been using to remake the Church in his own liberal image. He quickly canonized Óscar Romero, whose cause stalled under previous pontificates, and two liberal popes not known for any exceptional sanctity, John XXIII and Paul VI. He canonized Pope John Paul II too, but that was a fait accompli. As much as Pope Francis might have liked to stop it, he couldn’t. (Observers noted his dourness at the canonization ceremony.)"
That's just the teaser. Here is the link to the complete article:
https://spectator.org/the-fulton-sheen-fiasco/
Post a Comment