Sister Pimentel disappointed she could not speak with Trump during border visit

New York City, N.Y., Jun 15, 2018 / 12:21 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The Archdiocese of New York announced on Friday that the Trustees of St. Patrick’s Cathedral are appealing a court decision that would allow Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s body to be moved to Peoria, Ill., as his cause for beatification proceeds.

The Trustees, who oversee archdiocesan seminaries, “believe that the recent court case concerning the earthly remains of Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen was again incorrectly decided, and will seek an appeal of that decision along with a stay on moving the remains while the appellate court considers the case,” said a June 15 statement.

“At issue in the case, as the appellate court noted in its reversal of the trial court’s original decision, is what were Archbishop’s Sheen’s personal wishes concerning his final resting place,” the statement said.

“As Trustees, it is our responsibility to respect those wishes, and we believe that this most recent decision once again fails to consider those wishes and instead relies on the speculation and conjecture of others.”  

Last week, the Superior Court of New York ruled in favor of Joan Sheen Cunningham, who had petitioned to move the body of her uncle, Venerable Fulton Sheen, to the Cathedral of St. Mary in Peoria. The body of the late archbishop is currently in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City.

Judge Arlene Bluth, ruled that “the location of Archbishop Sheen’s final resting place would not have been his primary concern” and that “it makes no sense, given his lifelong devotion to the Catholic Church, that he would choose a location over the chance to become a saint.”

The Peoria diocese opened the cause for Sheen’s canonization in 2002 after Archdiocese of New York said it would not explore the case. In 2012, Benedict XVI recognized the heroic virtues of the archbishop.

However, Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria suspended the beatification cause in September 2014 on the grounds that the Holy See expected Sheen’s remains to be in the Peoria diocese.

The Archdiocese of New York, however, has said that Vatican officials have said the Peoria diocese can pursue Sheen’s canonization regardless of whether his body is at rest there.

Sheen was born in Illinois in 1895, and was ordained a priest of the Diocese of Peoria at the age of 24. He was appointed auxiliary bishop of New York in 1951, and he remained there until his appointment as Bishop of Rochester in 1966. He retired in 1969 and moved back to New York City until his death in 1979.

Sheen’s will had declared his wish to be buried in the Archdiocese of New York Calvary Cemetery. Soon after Sheen died, Cardinal Terence Cooke of New York asked Cunningham, Sheen’s closest living relative, if his remains could be placed in the New York cathedral’s crypt, and she consented.

Cunningham has said that Sheen would have wanted to have been interred in Peoria if he knew that he would be considered for sainthood. In 2016, she filed a legal complaint seeking to have her uncle’s remains moved to Peoria.

An initial court ruling had sided with Cunningham, but a state appeals court overturned that ruling, saying it had failed to give sufficient attention to a sworn statement from a colleague of Archbishop Sheen, Monsignor Hilary C. Franco, a witness for the New York archdiocese.

Msgr. Franco had said that Sheen told him he wanted to be buried in New York and that Cardinal Cooke had offered him a space in the crypt of St. Patrick’s Cathedral.

The appeals court ordered “a full exploration” of the archbishop’s desires.

In the New York Superior Court decision, Bluth ruled that “Mrs. Cunningham has offered a sound reason and a laudable purpose for her petition” and that Sheen “would care much less about the location of his earthly remains than his ability … to continue to serve man and God on a grand scale after his earthly demise.”

Both the Diocese of Peoria and the Archdiocese of New York have voiced prayers that the beatification cause may move forward in a timely manner.

Archbishop Sheen served as host of the “Catholic Hour” radio show and the television show “Life is Worth Living”.

In addition to his pioneering radio and television shows, Sheen authored many books, with proceeds supporting foreign missions. He headed the Society for the Propagation of the Faith at one point in his life, and continued to be a leading figure in U.S. Catholicism until his death.

Archbishop Sheen’s intercession is credited with the miraculous recovery of a pronounced stillborn American baby from the Peoria area.

In June 2014, a panel of theologians that advises the Congregation for the Causes of Saints ruled that the baby’s recovery was miraculous.

The baby, later named James Fulton Engstrom, was born in September 2010 showing no signs of life. As medical professionals tried to revive him, his parents prayed for his recovery through the intercession of Fulton Sheen.

Although the baby showed no pulse for an hour after his birth, his heart started beating again and he escaped serious medical problems.
 

[…]

Washington D.C., Mar 23, 2020 / 06:10 pm (CNA).- While Washington’s governor has praised the decision of his state’s lieutenant governor to enter the Society of Jesus after his term of office ends, the political record of Lt. Gov Cyrus Habi… […]

Fr. Richard Cassidy, professor of Sacred Scripture at Sacred Heart Major Seminary, dresses in Roman prisoner garb as he holds a copy of his newest book, “A Roman Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians.” Fr. Cassidy’s eighth scholarly work, the book explores the subversive nature of St. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, which the apostle wrote from behind bars in a Roman prison cell. / Valaurian Waller | Detroit Catholic

Detroit, Mich., Apr 30, 2022 / 08:00 am (CNA).

It was a tough decision for Rick Cassidy as he began graduate studies at the University of Michigan in mid-1960s. Would he take the course on Imperial Rome, because of his love of history, or the course History of Slavery, because of his deep concern for social justice?

The Dearborn native chose the course on slavery. The insights he acquired have helped to guide Fr. Richard Cassidy’s scholarly work for three decades, including his latest work, “A Roman Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians“ (Herder & Herder, 2020). 

Paul’s letter, composed in chains and secreted out of his Roman jail cell, is intentionally “counter-slavery” argues Father Cassidy, professor of Sacred Scripture at Sacred Heart Major Seminary since 2004, as well as “counter-emperor.” At its core, Philippians is an underground epistle that subverts the Roman power structure and the “lordship pretensions of Nero.” Reviewers praise the “distinctive thesis” of Father’s groundbreaking work as “fresh and illuminating,” making for “fascinating reading.”

This is Father Cassidy’s seventh book that examines the influence of Roman rule on the writers of the New Testament, and his eighth book overall. He returned to Ann Arbor on a rainy afternoon in late June to discuss his newest work.

Dan Gallio: St. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians is most known for its soaring declaration of the divinity Christ, before whom one day “every knee must bend,” and “every tongue proclaim” his universal lordship (2:6-11).  

Your new book presents a unique argument: Paul’s letter is primarily a “subversive” document of resistance against the Roman Empire—particularly against emperor worship and slavery. How did you arrive at this against-the-grain interpretation?

Father Cassidy: These insights were the result of long hours with the text, spending a lot of prayer time for guidance, as to Paul’s situation.

The issue of slavery came into play strongly. I now saw that Jesus was executed as a violator of Roman sovereignty, condemned by Pilate, executed under Emperor Tiberius—and that this was the slave’s form of death. This is a crucial point.

In regards to the two topics you mention, I had the intuition that the Letter to the Philippians was “counter-emperor cult” and “counter-slavery.” First, the self emptying of Christ from on high—descending downward into human form, downward, downward to the point of the slave’s death on a Roman cross—and then you have St. Paul’s wonderful words in chapter 2, verses 9-11.

My insight was that there is going to be a redressing of what has happened. Because of the great faithfulness of Jesus Christ, the Father intervenes and begins the lifting up, the ascending of Christ, where the Father exalts Jesus and bestows upon him “the name above every other name.”

So I can now speak about this famous passage in terms of a kind of  “drama”: four scenes that represent the descent of Jesus, and four scenes that represent his ascent, akin to a medieval passion play. The Father intervenes on Christ’s behalf, conferring upon him the name of “Lord.” Now all of creation, including the emperor, the governor, the imperial personnel, are all subject to Jesus. They have to prostrate themselves before the name of Jesus.

DG: So, essentially, Philippians is subversive because it makes a political statement as much as a theological one.

FC: Yes, but for some, it is a great privilege to genuflect at the name of Jesus. This includes slaves! Paul had integrated slaves into his community in Philippi. They were empowered now to proclaim the name of Jesus, standing alongside free men and women. They are standing alongside the Roman imperial power structure, all involved in the same process of bowing before Christ and proclaiming his name.

And that name is “Lord.” Jesus is being acclaimed as Lord, and not the emperor, to the glory of God the Father. This is the decisive element of Philippians 2:6-11, blended together in this one passage.

DG: You provide a forty-four-page introduction to the social situation of the Roman colony of Philippi. Why did you feel such an informative but lengthy introduction was necessary to support your thesis? 

FC: I had to establish that conditions at Philippi mirror conditions at Rome. This is important. Philippi was like “Little Rome.” When Paul is speaking of conditions at Philippi, his is also experiencing the same oppressive conditions at Rome as a chained prisoner. I had to establish that emperor worship was everywhere, in Philippi’s renowned amphitheater, in the streets, in public artifacts. That is why I had to go into an extensive introduction to set the stage of what Paul is doing in his letter. 

DG: Your appendices are extensive, too, like bookends to the introduction, driving the thesis home again using illustrations.

FC: There is one illustration of a monument where slaves are chained, and a slave trader is proclaiming his prowess as a slave trader. This monument to the degradation of slavery was at a city adjacent to Philippi. Paul almost certainly passed by it on his way to and from Philippi. It was discovered back in the 1930s and almost destroyed in the war by Nazi bombings.

DG: Paul is sometimes criticized by revisionist commentators for not rejecting the institution of slavery in his letters. Is your book an answer to these critics?

FC: Paul’s approach to slavery is complicated. There are some letters where he seems to envision the imminent return of Christ. Possibly he minimized the importance of slaves being freed in these letters. However, in Philippians, his final letter before his death, he addresses the issue definitively. It is very undermining of slavery.

I intended to de-establish the idea that Paul acquiesced to slavery. He did not acquiesce. The laudatory prepublication comments by scholars make me think the book will have a decisive role in re-imaging Paul.

DG: Back to Philippians 2:6-11. Why do you maintain this passage is not a hymn or baptismal catechesis, as is customarily believed, but is an original composition of Paul? Is this position another example of your counter exegesis?

FC: This is not some other preexisting hymn. No! This is fresh imaging. Visceral imaging. This is intensity from identifying with Christ as the “slave crucified.” No one else could have composed this passage. And Paul could not have composed this passage until he was in Roman chains and could see the threat posed against Jesus by the counterfeit claims that Emperor Nero is Lord.

DG: It’s almost like the passage is “supra-inspired,” that he would get such an original insight while in such dreadful circumstances.

FC: Correct. And there is a real question as to how this letter could be transmitted from prison, with the security and censorship. In garments? In pottery? It is possible the original written letter was confiscated. So how is Paul is getting his subversive thoughts past the Roman guards?

I suggest in my book that Paul was drilling his associates, Timothy and Epaphroditus, to memorize his letter, given the role of memory in early Christian life.

DG: With your busy teaching and pastoral duties, where to you find the motivation and energy to produce such a thoroughly researched, and beautifully written, work of scholarship?

FC: It’s Spirit driven!

DG: Is the Spirit driving you to another book?

FC: I would say so. After a book comes to publication, there is always a kind of mellowing period. So right now I have not identified the next project. I am appreciating the graces I have received from this book, and trusting that the same Spirit who has shepherded me through this sequence will still stand by me, guiding me forward. 

This article originally appeared in Mosaic, Sacred Heart Major Seminary’s magazine, and is reprinted at CNA with permission of the Detroit Catholic, where it was published April 20.

[…]