In a purely speculative exercise, and assuming that the whole fight over his corpse is a diversion, we’ve been putting forth
what we think are some reasons why Fulton Sheen’s “cause” for canonization may
have been put on hold. Oddly enough, we
think we might have come up with a plausible reason — keeping in mind that
“plausible” does not mean “probable,” and that “probable” does not mean “I-really-want-this-to-have-happened-therefore-it-did.
In our book we believe we have traced the major source of
the problem to the influence of Msgr. John A. Ryan, a.k.a., “Monsignor New
Deal,” “The Right Reverend New Dealer,” and the modernist changes he introduced
into the understanding of the natural law in A Living Wage (1906), and applied in the work he considered his
magnum opus, Distributive Justice
(1916). We have hard evidence to support
this contention, and we present it in our book.
The fact is there is evidence of a clear animus Ryan had
against Sheen, whom he evidently greatly feared, and took steps to neutralize the
threat represented by one “destined to shed more light and luster” (Fulton
Sheen, Treasure in Clay, p. 44) than
anyone else upon Catholic University, thereby displacing Ryan from his throne. This may be the cross to which Sheen referred
in the opening of Life of Christ
(1958).
In our opinion, the suspension of Sheen’s cause may be due
to the same conflict in paradigms with which CESJ has been struggling since its
founding in 1984. We see this also in
civil society, the economy, and throughout Islam, which (in our opinion) is
undergoing a “reformation” of sorts that will determine whether it goes with
the Aristotelian reason-based orientation of Ibn Khaldûn, or with the
faith-based orientation of the Wahhabi and the Caliphate.
The world is divided by a great culture war between faith
and reason, when it should be united on the basis of clear principles of the
natural law enlightened and guided, not contradicted or opposed, by faith,
hope, and charity. Until the issue is
decided, it could be considered unwise or imprudent to do anything other than
suspend the cause for Sheen’s canonization.
If Sheen’s cause proceeded further before the issue is
settled, those who venerate him for his faith and spirituality (which just
happens to be exactly the same as theirs, especially when it isn’t) yet reject
his reason-based Aristotelian-Thomism, would claim validation of their
position. This would, on a much smaller
scale, be as much a disaster as what happened with the hijacking of the Second
Vatican Council — and as unwarranted as it would be unjust.