Please tell me there is nothing wrong with +Fulton J. Sheen

[Miles Contra Mundi]

Is it not 'fiftiesism'   ??

[Parresia]

Didn't he used to be called "Uncle Fulty"? 

But Max is right.  If you want to know why the Church bellied up so fast in the sixties, this is part of the reason.

Did he teach or profess heresy?

I know he liked Teilhard de Chardin in the sixties.    But that's not the point.  The point is he represented much of what was wrong with Catholics in the USA in the fifties.

The only thing I am aware of the de Chardin got in trouble for were his thoughts on original sin.  I have watched many of Fulton Sheen's talks, and I don't remember him addressing that, but perhaps I missed it. 

As for the rest, that is a bit much.  Either he taught or professed heresy and is therefore not to be trusted and should not be canonized, or he did not.

I think the issue is what rbjmartin said:  his drinking the VII Kool-Aid.  If he professed the teachings of VII, then he very well may have taught heresy.  You might want to go back and re-watch his talks.  Now that you are a trad and probably view VII differently than you once did, you may view his talks differently.  It would be interesting at the very least.  I have never watched his talks, so I really couldn't say one way or another.

I know I once thought Bishop Sheen was traditional.  But that was my perception as a NO Catholic.

Apologies for my bluntness, but I am not particularly interested in what he may very well have one.  I am interested in what he actually did.  If he taught heresy, it should be easy to prove.  I have never particularly concerned myself with whether or not he is traditional, I have concerned myself with whether or not what he taught was the truth.  It would be great if he was traditional, that is for sure, but I am far more concerned with whether or not his material teaches the true Faith, or teaches heresy. 

If he taught falsehood, I am entirely open to seeing it, and would, in fact, prefer to know so that I can not recommend him to people.

[Bonaventure]

Many good works, but like nearly all of his peers, he sold out.

[Parresia]

In addition, I have rarely seen a talk, be it a retreat, conference, seminar, etc. where a joke or two was not told to relax people a bit, and to create some comfort between the speaker and the audience. 

In his "Autobiography," St. Anthony Mary Claret tells an interesting story about that.

When St. Anthony was founding his order of missionaries and giving missions across Spain, before he became Archbishop of Cuba, he would always walk from town to town. He believed that the mortification that inevitably accompanied the long journeys on foot was necessary for the success of the mission.

But one time he was giving a mission in the Canary Islands, and when he arrived at the dock, the people had a camel waiting for him. Rather than offend them, he rode the camel into town. The mission was a failure. Unlike his other missions where hundreds of people would be converted, in this mission there was not a single one.

So in the history of the Catholic Church, no one ever used humor and also managed to teach the Faith or evangelize effectively at the same time? 

[Bonaventure]

There's also no way he can say "well, it's my fault." That's all speculation.

[rbjmartin]

You can read excerpts of his autobiography (particularly sections concerning Vatican II) here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=gAzlAlPTzEcC&lpg=PA295&ots=ETbMliVhC2&dq=treasure%20in%20clay%20vatican&pg=PA295#v=onepage&q=treasure%20in%20clay%20vatican&f=false

[Petrie]

Didn't he used to be called "Uncle Fulty"? 

But Max is right.  If you want to know why the Church bellied up so fast in the sixties, this is part of the reason.

Did he teach or profess heresy?

I know he liked Teilhard de Chardin in the sixties.    But that's not the point.  The point is he represented much of what was wrong with Catholics in the USA in the fifties.

The only thing I am aware of the de Chardin got in trouble for were his thoughts on original sin.  I have watched many of Fulton Sheen's talks, and I don't remember him addressing that, but perhaps I missed it. 

As for the rest, that is a bit much.  Either he taught or professed heresy and is therefore not to be trusted and should not be canonized, or he did not.

I think the issue is what rbjmartin said:  his drinking the VII Kool-Aid.  If he professed the teachings of VII, then he very well may have taught heresy.  You might want to go back and re-watch his talks.  Now that you are a trad and probably view VII differently than you once did, you may view his talks differently.  It would be interesting at the very least.  I have never watched his talks, so I really couldn't say one way or another.

I know I once thought Bishop Sheen was traditional.  But that was my perception as a NO Catholic.

Apologies for my bluntness, but I am not particularly interested in what he may very well have one.  I am interested in what he actually did.  If he taught heresy, it should be easy to prove.  I have never particularly concerned myself with whether or not he is traditional, I have concerned myself with whether or not what he taught was the truth.  It would be great if he was traditional, that is for sure, but I am far more concerned with whether or not his material teaches the true Faith, or teaches heresy. 

If he taught falsehood, I am entirely open to seeing it, and would, in fact, prefer to know so that I can not recommend him to people.

Not sure why you sound annoyed.  Maybe I'm totally taking you the wrong way. 

Anyway, my point was if he taught VII, then depending upon what he focused on, he could have taught heresy.  For example, did he teach false ecumenism?  If so, then he taught the heretical teachings of VII.  I have not followed him as you apparently have.  That is why I am suggesting you take a second look at his "talks". 

[Parresia]

You can read excerpts of his autobiography (particularly sections concerning Vatican II) here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=gAzlAlPTzEcC&lpg=PA295&ots=ETbMliVhC2&dq=treasure%20in%20clay%20vatican&pg=PA295#v=onepage&q=treasure%20in%20clay%20vatican&f=false

Thanks for that. 

In the area that was open to my being able to read it, he discusses his experience at the council and being asked to write for the preparatory texts, but I am not able to read far enough (the website does not seem to allow it) to see his thoughts on how the council affected the life of the Church. 

[rbjmartin]

That Google book leaves out many pages, but I seem to recall that he did not think highly of Cardinal Ottaviani from one of those pages that has been cut out.

This piece from the SSPX Asia website seems to confirm it.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Catholic_Sermons/Fulton-Sheen.htm

There remain certain enigmas concerning the latter-day  Fulton Sheen which require examination. Worldliness and secularism had crept into his  own department, as many a foreign missionary could attest who would go there for funds, to be met by the sight of an army of mini-skirted young female typist secretaries employed by the Congregation for the Missions. Amazing slurs and disrespect for the venerated memory of the war-horse and old watch-dog of Orthodoxy, Cardinal Ottaviani, particularly in an odious display of contempt for this prelate and Prince of the Church during a special intervention made by him on behalf of the Faith during the Vatican II Council. There is also the curious recommendation of a heretical writer to use during the daily Holy Hour, made to a group of American bishops on retreat. William Barclay, for whatever his sincere opinions, was a Presbyterian minister who disbelieved in the Virgin Birth and the physical Resurrection of Our Lord - one does wonder how his Daily Living Guide commentaries on Sacred Scripture should be prefered over those of Catholic saints and traditional scholars. And, incredibly for one who had written so learnedly and movingly on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the apparent acceptation without demur or protest of the New Mass and the revolution accompanying it , which "departs in its overall inspiration as well as in detail" -  to use the words of the Brief Critical Examination of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci -"from the Catholic doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass as formulated by the Council of Trent".

[rbjmartin]

Marian Horvat also wrote this piece, which seems pretty informative.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f041ht_Sheen_VatII.htm

[Parresia]

Not sure why you sound annoyed.  Maybe I'm totally taking you the wrong way. 

Anyway, my point was if he taught VII, then depending upon what he focused on, he could have taught heresy.  For example, did he teach false ecumenism?  If so, then he taught the heretical teachings of VII.  I have not followed him as you apparently have.  That is why I am suggesting you take a second look at his "talks".

You admittedly have not watched any of his talks, and I assume then you have also not read any of his books.  If my assumption is correct, then you have no idea at all what he did or did not teach.  But despite your complete lack of knowledge, you have no problem suggesting that he might have taught heresy.  So yes, I am annoyed.  I tend to find it annoying when people throw out suggestions of heresy when in reality they have no idea what they are talking about.  I'm funny that way.

Its only annoyance, so its not that big of a deal.  I'll get over it. 

[rbjmartin]

Not really related, but fascinating...the FBI's dossier on Fulton Sheen when it was run by J. Edgar Hoover:

http://vault.fbi.gov/Bishop%20Fulton%20Sheen/Bishop%20Fulton%20Sheen%20Part%201%20of%203/view

[Petrie]

Didn't he used to be called "Uncle Fulty"? 

But Max is right.  If you want to know why the Church bellied up so fast in the sixties, this is part of the reason.

Did he teach or profess heresy?

I know he liked Teilhard de Chardin in the sixties.    But that's not the point.  The point is he represented much of what was wrong with Catholics in the USA in the fifties.

The only thing I am aware of the de Chardin got in trouble for were his thoughts on original sin.  I have watched many of Fulton Sheen's talks, and I don't remember him addressing that, but perhaps I missed it. 

As for the rest, that is a bit much.  Either he taught or professed heresy and is therefore not to be trusted and should not be canonized, or he did not.

I think the issue is what rbjmartin said:  his drinking the VII Kool-Aid.  If he professed the teachings of VII, then he very well may have taught heresy.  You might want to go back and re-watch his talks.  Now that you are a trad and probably view VII differently than you once did, you may view his talks differently.  It would be interesting at the very least.  I have never watched his talks, so I really couldn't say one way or another.

I know I once thought Bishop Sheen was traditional.  But that was my perception as a NO Catholic.

Apologies for my bluntness, but I am not particularly interested in what he may very well have one.  I am interested in what he actually did.  If he taught heresy, it should be easy to prove.  I have never particularly concerned myself with whether or not he is traditional, I have concerned myself with whether or not what he taught was the truth.  It would be great if he was traditional, that is for sure, but I am far more concerned with whether or not his material teaches the true Faith, or teaches heresy. 

If he taught falsehood, I am entirely open to seeing it, and would, in fact, prefer to know so that I can not recommend him to people.

Not sure why you sound annoyed.  Maybe I'm totally taking you the wrong way. 

Anyway, my point was if he taught VII, then depending upon what he focused on, he could have taught heresy.  For example, did he teach false ecumenism?  If so, then he taught the heretical teachings of VII.  I have not followed him as you apparently have.  That is why I am suggesting you take a second look at his "talks".

You admittedly have not watched any of his talks, and I assume then you have also not read any of his books.  If my assumption is correct, then you have no idea at all what he did or did not teach.  But despite your complete lack of knowledge, you have no problem suggesting that he might have taught heresy.  So yes, I am annoyed.  I tend to find it annoying when people throw out suggestions of heresy when in reality they have no idea what they are talking about.  I'm funny that way.

You know what?  Now I'm annoyed.  I am not saying he did , in fact, teach heresy.  I am, in fact, giving him the benefit of the doubt for the VERY FACT that I have not listened to his talks.  You are taking this too personally.  Get a ffreaking grip.

[The Harlequin King]

Not really related, but fascinating...the FBI's dossier on Fulton Sheen when it was run by J. Edgar Hoover:

http://vault.fbi.gov/Bishop%20Fulton%20Sheen/Bishop%20Fulton%20Sheen%20Part%201%20of%203/view

That is indeed fascinating.

[Parresia]

That Google book leaves out many pages, but I seem to recall that he did not think highly of Cardinal Ottaviani from one of those pages that has been cut out.

This piece from the SSPX Asia website seems to confirm it.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Catholic_Sermons/Fulton-Sheen.htm

There remain certain enigmas concerning the latter-day  Fulton Sheen which require examination. Worldliness and secularism had crept into his  own department, as many a foreign missionary could attest who would go there for funds, to be met by the sight of an army of mini-skirted young female typist secretaries employed by the Congregation for the Missions. Amazing slurs and disrespect for the venerated memory of the war-horse and old watch-dog of Orthodoxy, Cardinal Ottaviani, particularly in an odious display of contempt for this prelate and Prince of the Church during a special intervention made by him on behalf of the Faith during the Vatican II Council. There is also the curious recommendation of a heretical writer to use during the daily Holy Hour, made to a group of American bishops on retreat. William Barclay, for whatever his sincere opinions, was a Presbyterian minister who disbelieved in the Virgin Birth and the physical Resurrection of Our Lord - one does wonder how his Daily Living Guide commentaries on Sacred Scripture should be prefered over those of Catholic saints and traditional scholars. And, incredibly for one who had written so learnedly and movingly on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the apparent acceptation without demur or protest of the New Mass and the revolution accompanying it , which "departs in its overall inspiration as well as in detail" -  to use the words of the Brief Critical Examination of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci -"from the Catholic doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass as formulated by the Council of Trent".

Thanks for that one.  If the claims made there are true, and I have no reason to suspect they are lying, then that is interesting.  Perhaps it is, as they also say on that page, that he simply had some human failings, but also did and wrote many great things on the Faith. 

Other quotes from that SSPX link:

The more familiar a reader becomes with Sheen's writings, the more they reveal the author behind the page.  It is an author who, with all his admitted human failings, had a great intellect that he placed at the disposal of Providence and who allowed God to wear him out in the service of souls.

From his first book, God and Intelligence in Modern Philosophy  (1925), a commentary of the Prima Pars of St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica , to the one-volume edition of Life Is Worth Living (1978) on Aquinas' treatment of the moral virtues, Sheen averaged more than one book a year.  It is noteworthy that much of his published writing had originally been lectures or conference papers.  One result is that his books are like conversations with the reader, but with one important difference; his language is always clear, even crystal clear.  And his ideas are never abstract in a pedantic sense but are constantly illustrated with stories from real life and explained in concrete terms that remind one of Christ's own teaching by telling parables.

Once, having completed post-graduate work at Louvain University in Belgium, he paid a visit to Cardinal Mercier who was much involved in restoring the works of St. Thomas Aquinas to the Catholic curriculum. "Your Eminence', he asked,' you were always a brilliant teacher; would you kindly give me some suggestions about teaching?" "I will - always keep current;  know what the modern world is thinking about; read its poetry, its history, its literature; observe its architecture and its art; hear its music and its theatre; and then  plunge deeply into St. Thomas and the wisdom of the ancients and you will be able to refute its errors."  So we have the following works to thank Sheen for:

They then go on to list 34 books (with an etc. at the end which implies that there are more they could add to that list) that they can thank Fulton Sheen for.  It seems odd that the SSPX would thank Bishop Sheen for this great number of books if they contained anything contrary to the Faith, or if they felt that he was someone who should be stayed away from. 


That his books are to be considered good is supported by this statement which they also make in the SSPX article you linked:

One of the less-familiar aspects of Fulton Sheen's writing career is the zeal that motivated everything he wrote, fueled by the practise he adopted at seminary and never gave up of a daily continuous Hour of Prayer before Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.  His driving purpose was not to inform or inspire, except as a means to an end.  That end was to make Christ better known and loved by the millions who heard him speak or read his books.

But Sheen made one thing especially clear in the several million words of print that he published: there is no true peace on earth, and no promise of happiness in the life to come except at the price of the Cross.  Paganism, he would say, is Christianity without the Cross.  It is this simple truth that readers of Fulton Sheen will learn, above all, from his voluminous writings.

They then go on to note some of the things you quoted above, as well as stating that while he did address communism directly on many occasions, he did not do so in the context of the Church.  In essence they seem to be noting a lack of doing something rather than having done something wrong.

All in all, it seems that Fulton Sheen, per this particular article, had his human failings, but that his writings contain things which are not contrary to the Faith, and actually are quite edifying for Catholics.