While Archbishop Sheen’s cause for canonization has advanced in the interim, with the 2012 acceptance by Pope Benedict of a decree about his “heroic virtue” and the twofold acceptance of a miracle earlier this year by Vatican panels of doctors and theologians, there seems to have been no movement with regard to the dispute about his remains.
What are Catholics, especially those who are devoted to Archbishop Sheen and want to see his beatification and, God-willing, eventual canonization move forward, supposed to think about this controversy?
Those devoted to Archbishop Sheen owe Bishop Jenky and the Sheen Foundation immense gratitude for their 12 years of hard work on his cause for canonization. Because Archbishop Sheen died in New York and was buried there, it was the Archdiocese of New York that had the canonical right to introduce Sheen’s cause. But they formally refused to do so early last decade, for various reasons. That’s when Peoria, in whose diocese Sheen was born, grew up and was ordained, stepped up to the plate to ensure that the cause would go forward despite New York’s decision not to pursue it.
Together with the Sheen Foundation, the diocese paid for all of the enormous costs associated with the cause, supplied canonists to marshal the process and do interviews, including in the Big Apple, and, in short, shouldered the entire effort.
The Peoria Diocese also has a great museum dedicated to Archbishop Sheen’s memory in its Spaulding Pastoral Center and has a beautiful spot picked out in the Cathedral of St. Mary in Peoria, where Archbishop Sheen used to serve Mass and where he was ordained a priest, in which the faithful would be able one day to venerate his remains.
But all of that hard, heroic work and dedication doesn’t entitle them to Sheen’s remains.
Archbishop Sheen had indicated that he wanted to be buried in a simple plot in a New York cemetery, but Cardinal Terence Cooke offered that he be interred in St. Patrick’s. He expressed no desire to be buried back in Peoria or even in Rochester, N.Y., where he had been the diocesan bishop. While those desires do not necessarily have to be the only or final word, they ought to carry significant weight.
It’s totally understandable that Bishop Jenky and the faithful of Peoria would want their native son’s remains returned — after all, who wouldn’t want to have the remains of a blessed as a point of veneration in the heart of one’s local Church? — and especially so, after all the diligence and dollars in pushing his cause.
But it’s also totally understandable why Cardinal Dolan would not want to send the remains of (we pray) a future saint back to Peoria, but, rather, make them a focal point of veneration within St. Patrick’s where, if his tomb is moved out of the crypt into a fitting ambulatory shrine, many more people will be able to pray before his remains in a month than would be able to venerate him in a year in Central Illinois.
What are we to make of Peoria’s repeated declarations about New York’s failure to fulfill a commitment to transfer the remains to Peoria? It’s hard to say much of anything because, as Msgr. Mustaciuolo stated, there is no written evidence of any such agreement, and there has never been any specificity on the part of Peoria as to who committed to what on the part of the archdiocese.
On the one hand, it’s impossible to imagine that Bishop Jenky would be inventing that assertion; but on the other hand, it’s possible to conceive that he misunderstood conversations he had with senior archdiocesan officials. It seems pretty clear from what we do know that Cardinal Dolan has firmly resisted the transferal of the remains since he took over as archbishop in 2009 and that he doesn’t consider that a reversal of previous policy.
(Column continues below)
Subscribe to our daily newsletter
Msgr. Mustaciuolo’s statement that the Congregation for the Causes of Saints instructed Cardinal Egan in 2005 not to transfer remains would seem to be the description of a normal letter the congregation would send about any translation while a process was ongoing — lest anyone presume by the exhumation a favorable indication that the cause will be successful — rather than something that would permanently forbid any transfer.
Where would a Solomonic compromise lie if the archdiocese refuses to transfer the body and Peoria refuses to proceed with the cause except with the body?
It would seem to be in Peoria’s coming to New York to examine the body and secure some first-class relics to take back to Peoria, where, eventually, a beatification ceremony could take place, but that the body would remain at St. Patrick’s.
The examination of the body means simply the identification of the remains. In situations of doubt as to where someone was buried, this is an important step; for someone publicly buried in the presence of many witnesses and kept securely in a church crypt, it’s pro forma.
The acquisition of relics is needed for the beatification ceremony because during the liturgical rite the mortal remains of the new beatus are solemnly brought forward to be venerated. Technically, first-class relics (parts of the person’s body, hair or blood) are not necessary for beatification; second-class relics (those things that the person used, like his clothing) suffice. But first-class relics are preferred, both liturgically and devotionally.
In a Sept. 4 statement, Joseph Zwilling speaking on behalf of the Archdiocese of New York, said that the two dioceses are in dialogue with regard to the exhumation and examination of the body and the possible collection of first-class relics. It stated that Cardinal Dolan wants to ensure that the exhumation be done at the express direction of the congregation, with the permission of the family, according to New York law and modestly and reverently.