Le Forum Catholique

Alors que la cérémonie de béatification avait été fixée pour le 21 décembre prochain, le Saint-Siège a décidé de reporter la béatification à une date ultérieure suite à la demande d'évêques de la conférence épiscopale américaine.

On peut lire ce revirement de situation sur le site du diocèse de Peoria.

La béatification de mgr Angelelli avance

C'était un proche des révolutionnaires...

Elle avance tellement qu'elle a eu lieu le 27 avril dernier...

…en a fait les frais. Elle pourra reculer !

ça ne fera jamais qu'un damné de plus que l'Eglise aura porté sur les autels et dont, forte de sa mission de sanctifier les âmes, elle aura ordonné le culte public dans toute la chrétienté.

Cordialement
Meneau

Il ne s’agit que d’une béatification, comme pour Simon de Trente d’après mes souvenirs de lisures du FC. Qui déjà avait fait cette judicieuse distinction ?

En outre personne n’est allé jusqu’à dire que Simon de Trente est damné. Simplement certains doutent qu’il ait été assassiné en haine de la foi (le procès aurait été frauduleux). Ce dont on peut aussi douter pour le défunt évêque, sans faute de sa part. Il n’est pas responsable des motifs de ses bourreaux !

Vous avez raison. Il ne s'agit que d'une béatification.

Cordialement
Meneau

C’est anachronique. Saint Simon de Trente a bien été honoré comme un Saint des siècles durant et non comme un bienheureux.

La procédure moderne pour les canonisations fut introduite par Benoît XIV des siècles après Sixte V. D’ailleurs, il suffit de se demander pourquoi Benoît XIV a (de manière très avisée) révisé la procédure de canonisation pour comprendre.

Sixte V est mort en 1590

De servorum Dei beatificatione et de beatorum canonizatione, 1734-1738.


A peine un siècle et demi.

Si vous n'avez que ça à répondre...

L'un est un pape du XVIe, l'autre du XVIIIe, donc la remarque n'a vraiment aucun intérêt wn plus de ne rien changer à l'affaire.

Que faut-il en conclure ? La canonisation selon les normes de jadis de Simon de Trente est-elle plus ou moins douteuse que la béatification de Mgr Angelelli ?

Ce n’est pas tant le fait qu’il était invoqué comme un "Saint" ou non qui importe pour la distinction (peut-être anachronique) entre béatification et canonisation il me semble, mais si son culte a été autorisé dans son diocèse ou bien étendu à l’Église universelle. En cela les deux affaires sont analogues.

Son culte n'a pas du tout été limité à Trente.

il avait deux ans !
Quant à la révision de son procès, elle a été effectuée dans les années 60. Il faut beaucoup de méfier des innovations des années 60, surtout quand elles contredisent des jugements antérieurs de l'Eglise. Si l'on ajoute le contexte de pacification des relations avec nos frères aînés dans la foi, on peut comprendre que l'on ait voulu retirer cette pierre d'achoppement

The planned beatification of former Rochester bishop Fulton J. Sheen was delayed at the request of Bishop Salvatore Matano, the Peoria Diocese told reporters for the Journal Star Wednesday night.

Until Wednesday night, the Peoria Diocese had been circumspect in discussing Monday’s decision by the Vatican to indefinitely postpone the Dec. 21 ceremony — a rare balk at this stage of the process of beatification, one step short of sainthood. However, Monsignor James Kruse, a key cog in Peoria Diocese’s sainthood campaign for Sheen, decided to speak out after another report by the Catholic News Agency that Kruse said suggested Sheen did not act appropriately regarding a clergyman accused of sexual wrongdoing.

The Wednesday report — which the CNA later revised to include Kruse’s defense of Sheen — alleged that Sheen, bishop in Rochester from 1966 to 1969, allowed a priest accused of sexual abuse to head a Rochester parish. Kruse said that “months and months and months ago,” the Rochester Diocese had reported that allegation to the Peoria Diocese and the Vatican — both of which cleared Sheen after lengthy and separate investigations.

“Sheen in no way acted inappropriately,” Kruse told the Journal Star.
The Rochester development adds a new layer of drama to a spiritual matter that already has been besmirched by a remarkable political battle. For years, the Archdiocese of New York tried stop the Peoria Diocese from moving Sheen’s remains from New York to Peoria, a necessary step in the sainthood process. The Archdiocese claimed it was defending Sheen’s burial wishes, but the Diocese accused New York of sour grapes.

More: Bishop Fulton Sheen's bones at center of raging court case

Last summer, after a New York court order, the remains were moved to Peoria. Days later, the Vatican approved a miracle by Sheen, paving the way for beatification. In November, the Peoria Diocese announced the Vatican had set the beatification for Dec. 21.

But apparently right after the November announcement, Bishop Salvatore Matano of Rochester sent a letter to the Vatican warning that Sheen might be somehow named amid investigations stemming from 70-plus sex-abuse lawsuits filed against the Rochester Diocese. The Vatican, without comment, this week issued the postponement.

Kruse says the core of the Rochester letter involves a priest, Gerald Guli, who served in Rochester in the early 1960s. Before Sheen’s arrival there, Guli was accused of sex abuse, then reassigned to a parish in West Virginia.

Accusation of political snipe
In 1967, while Sheen headed the Rochester Diocese, Guli returned to Rochester to take care of ailing parents, Kruse said. Guli asked for a parish assignment, but Sheen said no, Kruse said. Moreover, Guli — who is 95 and still living in Rochester — spoke to Kruse directly months ago and confirmed that Sheen never assigned him to Rochester parish. However, in 1969, soon after Sheen departed Rochester, his successor assigned Guli to a Rochester parish, during which time Guli was accused of another instance of sex abuse, Kruse said.

“All of that was after Sheen served in Rochester,” Kruse said.

Further, Peoria and Rome exhaustively pored over Church documents regarding Guli. Both found no wrongdoing by Sheen, Kruse said.

“Sheen was exonerated, so the Vatican said, ‘Go ahead with the beatification,’” Kruse said.

ACCUSED: Rochester-area priests and others named in child sex abuse complaints

In Rochester, Bishop Matano was well aware of Peoria and Rome clearing Sheen’s name in the matter, Kruse said. Asked if the Matano protested the beatification as a political snipe, Kruse declined to comment.
'Rochester hates Sheen'
However, sources tell the Journal Star in Peoria that Rochester does not want Sheen to be beatified — “Rochester hates Sheen,” as one source put it — for two reasons. One is a 50-year grudge against Sheen for moves as bishop that detractors there derided as overly bold, such as trying to give a parish building to the federal government to house impoverished African Americans.

But the biggest reason reflects the New York Archdiocese’s lingering irritation over losing the Sheen tug-of-war to Peoria, sources said. Though Bishop Matano’s signature as on the protest letter to the Vatican, he would not have signed it without first consulting Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who heads the Archdiocse.

“A local bishop would not do something of this magnitude without Dolan’s approval,” a source told the Journal Star.

To the Journal Star, the Archdiocese has laid the postponement entirely at feet of the Vatican.

Reached after business hours Wednesday, the Rochester Diocese did not immediately return a Journal Star voice mail. However, to the Catholic News Agency, the Rochester Diocese issued this statement: “The decision to postpone the beatification of Archbishop Sheen was solely the decision of the Holy See. Respecting the competency of the Holy See in this matter, the Diocese will decline further comment.”

PHIL LUCIANO is a Journal Star columnist. He can be reached at pluciano@pjstar.com

Published 12:05 PM EST Dec 5, 2019Sourceet LA
et
L'évêque de Rochester demande un délai pour la béatification de l'archevêque Fulton Sheenici