America's Bishop: The Unpublished Conclusion by Thomas C. Reeves

America’s Bishop THE UNPUBLISHED CONCLUSION • THOMAS C. REEVES

CHAPTER TWELVE ‘Living Intensely’

Copyright © 2001 by Thomas C. Reeves All rights reserved. Chapter Twelve, ‘Living Intensely,’ published on the internet March 1, 2015 by the author. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form without prior written permission from the author.

America’s Bishop The Life and Times of Fulton J. Sheen Available in paperback at: Encounter Books Amazon.com Barnes & Noble.com

America’s Bishop THE UNPUBLISHED CONCLUSION

TWELVE

Living Intensely

hat strikes one in retrospect about Fulton J. Sheen, perhaps above all, was his single-mindedness. To an extraordinary degree, his mind was on God. This supernatural approach to life activated and sustained his enormous energy. He said late in life, “the secret of my power is that I have never in fifty-five years missed spending an hour in the presence of our Lord in the blessed sacrament. That’s where the power comes from. That’s where sermons are born. That’s where every good thought is conceived.”1 Throughout his adult life, Sheen had a passion for saving souls and defending what he believed with his every breath was the true Church of Christ. He did not take days off or vacations or reserve any significant amount of time for himself in the normal course of things just to relax. (In 1967, he informed an old friend that he had seen his first movie in seventeen years.)2 There was critical work to do, and it was God’s work. Sheen wrote in 1936: The most watchful must feel as one who cannot neglect for an hour, even as the Apostles in the garden; the most aspiring must feel as one who aims his shaft from a strained and slackened bow; the most hopeful of eternal life as one who must 1

America’s Bishop

enter the narrow gate and travel the straight road. Salvation is not the by-play of idle hours! When the mind is wearied of overtoiling and is cloyed with the oppressive customs of the world, it must goad itself to remember that redemption is not for those who bury their talents in napkins.…In a word, every fiber, every muscle, every sense, every faculty must be used to win the eternal crown, for may it not be that all our indifference to the gifts and the graces of God in this day and age is more crucifying to our Lord than the cruel intolerance which nailed Him to the Cross?3 He wrote in his autobiography, “If we live intensely, I believe that somehow or other we can work up until the day God draws the line and says: ‘Now it is finished.’ ”4 What Stanley I. Jaki has written of Cardinal Newman applies to Sheen as well: “To weigh [him] according to whether he was a liberal or a conservative, a progressive or a traditionalist is a thoroughly misplaced approach to him, because he was all this, provided those terms are carefully defined. His real stature emerges only in the perspective of seeing him as the giant spokesman of the supernatural. The supernatural was his focal point where everything came together in his burning zeal for God’s cause on earth.”5 Sheen’s lifelong attempts to achieve personal holiness stemmed naturally from his supernatural leanings. He strove mightily for decades to achieve purity in mind and body. In Catholic teaching, purity means abstinence from sin and the observance of continence and chastity according to one’s state in life. In the Beatitudes, Jesus said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” The great Anglican poet John Keble put it this way: “Bless’d are the pure in heart, For they shall see our God, The secret of the Lord is theirs, Their

Living Intensely

soul is Christ’s abode….Still to the lowly soul He doth Himself impart, And for His cradle and His throne Chooseth the pure in heart.”6 While no one achieves anything near perfection on this score, it is in the effort to reach purity, in faith, always praying for grace, that Christians, according to the Church, will be judged. Sheen wrote of purity that it was “not a prudish or a hysterical disgust; but a reverence for God and His Creation which consents to nothing incompatible with the light of holiness which shines upon us from the countenance of Jesus. Purity is not a blindness to beauty, but a vision of the beauty of God’s ineffable purity which only the clean of heart may see.”7 Inextricably connected with purity is the command to love God and neighbor. One may reject the standards of the world, abstain from every vice, believe the essentials of the faith, and follow every rule, but without love all is futile. Jesus was more bitterly critical of the Pharisees than anyone else. Throughout his life, Fulton sought both purity and the power to love. He worked assiduously at his sanctification, the growing into conformity with Christ. His vigorous prayer life (from the earliest days of the Apostles, prayer being what Blessed Josemaria Escriva has called “the foundation of the spiritual edifice”), his intense study of Scripture, theology, philosophy, and history, and his many works of charity drew him ever closer to his goal.8 Especially at the end, when wracked with pain and in the full realization of the emptiness of fame and fortune, he made progress. He understood as never before that God was the sculptor who, through suffering as well as love, transforms the willing mortal into a being who reflects, at least to some degree, the holiness of his Maker. That transformation is vital in winning converts. Sheen told an audience in the mid-1970s, “…the only argument that is left to con-

America’s Bishop

vince others is holiness. The world has heard every other argument, and it is ready to reject them, all except one: holiness.”9 The effort to tame the natural self is always the prerequisite for reaching out in love to others. Sheen went beyond his personal struggles to engage in a lifetime of activity that, as we have seen, was both extraordinary and, at least in the eyes of the great majority of Catholics, admirable. In his publications, sermons, speeches, and radio and television appearances, countless millions were reached (and continue to be reached) with the Gospel of love and hope. For untold millions, listening to the radio and watching television, Sheen was the Church. One Church authority wrote of Sheen’s television work: To an unaccountable number of viewers, Bishop Sheen represented the spiritual for which their souls hungered, and for which they knew not where to turn. To many he was the voice of God in so far as he was a living testimony to the existence of a loving God, by Whom they were created, for Whom they were destined. He was the respite from the rat-race of life, the assurance that the urge that their human spirit felt for peace and happiness could be satisfied and would be satisfied in God. That voice which they had grown to love and to seek in the weekly program, was but the articulation in modern terms of what St. Augustine had said and which has found an echo in every human heart ever since: ‘You have created us for Yourself, O Lord, and our hearts shall not find rest until they rest in Thee.’ ”10 Sheen’s quiet work with priests and Religious and untold numbers of individual converts also deserve praise. For decades he exhausted himself to educate and inspire those inside the Church and

Living Intensely

those seeking to enter its portals. In both cases the emphasis was on charity and kindness. One convert, journalist Gretta Palmer, later wrote poetry about her experience with the priest who labored to bring her into the Church. In a work entitled “FJS: Easter,” she wrote, My Father and my friend: they say of you, You are ‘a man of fire.’ It is not true. You are no latter-day Demosthenes Storming the sluggish-hearted to their knees By furnace-fervor. Nor, when Cicero Stirred men to action did he stir them so. Your skill is not like Burke’s, is not of Pitt: Flee from this flattery. Have none of it. For they were men of fire and of the sword, Self-seeking men. (And they have their reward.) They moved the world to wars, they swayed the State, Used passionate persuasion to the great, Scanned secret papers, won the ear of kings, Connived—conspired—were at the ‘heart of things’— Destroyed—consumed—harassed—and left their mark (A scar where once there was a living spark.) But you, Monsignor, you are not of these Who strut and storm through ancient histories: Yours is a gentler gift. Love is its name.11 Sheen’s quiet labors as a university professor also deserve attention. For nearly a quarter of a century at Catholic University and elsewhere, he roused the minds of thousands of young people to think about philosophy and theology, and to absorb the teachings of the Catholic Church, preparing them not only for jobs but for Christian vocations as parents and examples of the Gospel to their

America’s Bishop

neighbors. The President of the Catholic University of America issued a statement following Sheen’s death that read in part: “Those who were his students remember vividly not only the clarity of his thought and the forceful assertiveness of his teaching, but his great devotion to the Holy Eucharist. His personal synthesis of faith and intellect in service to all humankind made him the singularly appropriate first recipient of the University’s Patronal Medal he received four years ago.”12 Sheen’s fund-raising work with the Society for the Propagation of the Faith was another sign of his dedication and effective labor. An official wrote, “In so far as human assessment can go, it would not be possible to point to another figure who has done so much in enlisting support for the Society for the Propagation of the Faith.”13 How many thousands of missionaries and millions of people throughout the world had their lives and souls enriched due to the efforts of the Society’s Director? A major part of Sheen’s success was his positive disposition. His optimism, humility, grand sense of humor, and concern for others made him attractive to practically everyone who crossed his path— in person, in publications, or in the media. Peter Kreeft, a very wise man, has written, “The Catholic Church will not canonize a saint unless not only heroic virtue but heroic joy is found. That’s one of the fruits of the Spirit.”14 Recollections of this sort of “heroic joy” appear routinely in the interviews collected for this book. Sheen once wrote, “There are saints in heaven who have been sinners, but no saint is ever admitted to heaven who is sad. The greatest walk is in the freshness of morning, shouting Joy.”15 There was, of course, a very human side of Sheen; as there must be, there were faults. The creation and use of a second doctorate, his ambition, at least one act of arrogance, his vanity, his high standard

Living Intensely

of living (an issue only because he consistently preached against materialism and urged concern and sacrifice for the poor), his defiance of authority in the case of Cardinal Spellman—these were signs that Fulton had not reached perfection. But perfection, since it is unattainable, has never been a criterion for sainthood, let alone admiration. Moreover, except for the invention of the academic degree—not a terribly serious offense given his actual educational attainments— Sheen’s failings seem extraordinarily minimal. His encounters with the Seven Deadly Sins—pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, and sloth—were far from common. Sheen’s primary problem, which he freely admitted, was pride, the sin St. Thomas Aquinas called the queen of all vices. Ambition is an offspring of pride, and Sheen certainly had his share. Still, not many clergy, nor many others for that matter, lack ambition, especially when they have received even a partial measure of Sheen’s intellectual prowess and personal charm. The Church, in its long history, has honored many who believed themselves called and qualified to exercise the authority on which the Mystical Body of Christ relies. Arrogance? Fulton’s arrogance was best displayed in the private struggle with Catholic Hour officials. But there was another side to that story. Efforts to edit his talks and limit his time on the air, which he was convinced were unreasonable and were producing the program’s low ratings, provoked his occasionally petulant behavior. His wrath was stirred in part because of his love of the radio program. Moreover, these incidents were out of character. Most people who knew Sheen well were impressed by his extraordinary humility and selflessness. He spent much of his life on his knees. Vanity? He was vain in the sense that he was always impeccably and expensively dressed and well groomed, and drove about in fine (donated) automobiles. But the Church would not rank such conduct

America’s Bishop

among the mortal sins. It was not the fashion at the time for monsignors and bishops to live in poverty. Moreover, while Sheen enjoyed a lovely home in Washington, D.C. during fewer than half the years he taught at Catholic University, a home he shared with others, his quarters before and afterward were relatively modest. Still, some saw him as a sort of clerical prince. In the papers of Fr. Philip Donnelly, S.J., a Catholic University scholar found the following limerick: There as a young man from Peoria Who chanted ‘Sit Domini gloria!’ By patience and prayer And devout savoir-faire He now lives in the Waldorf Astoria.16 Sheen revealed his vanity in his love to be in the headlines. His clipping file began in the 1920s. In Rochester, he gave his stories first to the New York newspapers for maximum exposure. Vanity also expressed itself in the constantly growing number of publications, often reworked and sometimes verbatim versions of earlier materials in print. The continued use of the extra doctorate fits into this category as well. So does his boasting. Sheen recounted the stories of several converts in countless sermons, while at the same time telling people that all the credit should be given to God. He told the world he had given $10 million to the Society for the Propagation of the Faith while he declared his disdain for money. Treasure in Clay contains many accounts of his heroic deeds, even the blessing of the dying man in the hospital after Sheen’s open-heart surgery, that might well have been left for God alone to know. Still, others chose to stress the more obvious perception. Msgr. James G. Wilder, who knew Sheen well for many years in New York, said later: “Often I’d meet people who were very sick, in the hospi-

Living Intensely

tal, or who had a child who was dying, and they would ask me if I could arrange for Bishop Sheen to come and visit them. He was quite famous already, but the publicity never went to his head. He was always available.”17 In any case, Fulton was wise and holy enough in his old age to recognize his vanity and publicly express great remorse. It is not unimportant to note that Sheen gave away almost all of his wealth. The some $10 million he donated might have been spent in any number of ways, of course, if vanity, another offspring of pride, had been a critically serious problem. His personal generosity toward the needy was legendary in New York. The evidence is overwhelming that he was deeply concerned for the poor at home and throughout the world, and that his love had no racial, ethnic, or religious boundaries. Sheen’s concern was not just rhetorical; it involved significant personal financial sacrifice and sixteen years of full-time effort with the Society. His failure to obey Cardinal Spellman? While we lack all of the facts of this case, it must be recalled that Spellman was asking Sheen to do something that the Society Director found morally objectionable. Moreover, as Pius XII discovered, Spellman was not telling the truth about a financial disagreement he had with Sheen. Acquiescence was the easiest solution to the problem; doors might have opened to a cardinalate instead of the decade of persecution that followed. But Sheen stood by his principles. There are worse faults. True, pride on both sides undoubtedly played a part in the struggle. But in his autobiography Fulton chose to repent of his own sins and had the moral strength to remain silent about the machinations of his superior. Obedience to papal authority and to the Magisterium of the Church were hallmarks of Sheen’s life. His sermons, speeches, and publications bear no trace of rebellion, and only a single example

America’s Bishop

(certain married people and birth control) of an attempt to rationalize behavior outside the laws of the Church. He played no part in the struggles against authority so popular among Catholic theologians, priests, and Religious in the 1960s and 1970s. Indeed, had he chosen to disobey the Vatican, his reputation among many Catholic intellectuals would be higher today. His works could be called “cutting edge” and “thoughtful.” Fulton Sheen’s obedience may well be the major reason he has been denigrated and often forgotten in the American Church. It is not uncommon to hear and read that Sheen is “dated.” Sheen’s virulent anti-communism, another reason for his dismissal by many on the left, seems today almost entirely laudable. “Almost” because at times his generalities got the best of him, and he lumped too many people together in his denunciations. But Sheen was telling the people of this country and the world that communism was both totalitarian and anti-Christian, and that its triumph meant human slavery. He was correct. We now know that his deep concern about internal subversion was generally on target. With the opening of the Soviet archives, our knowledge of communist infiltration has expanded greatly, giving us a better view of the incredible extent of the treachery than ever before. Sheen’s extensive study of Marx and Lenin, his understanding of the struggle in the Spanish Civil War, and his empathy with the dire warnings issued by the Vatican, made him a beacon of truth at a time, in the 1930s and 1940s, when many intellectuals were taken in by the promises and lies of the Soviets. While Fulton’s fiery speeches and writings may have assisted in some small way unscrupulous, zealous, and brainless Red hunters in the 1950s, they also helped prepare the United States for the Cold War—a war that ended in victory. Sheen’s many condemnations of Freud, again based on a lengthy

Living Intensely

study of the subject at hand, seem both prescient and wise. In our own time, the emerging consensus among scientists, including psychiatrists, is that Freud was wrong about almost everything. Penis envy, castration anxiety, latent homosexuality and Oedipal complexes, dreams as pathways to the unconscious, even psychoanalysis are under siege. University of Toronto historian of medicine Edward Shorter declared in mid-2000 that psychoanalysis is “a dinosaur ideology of the 19th century staggering toward the tar pit.” The rage for Freud may have stemmed from the topics he chose to address. As one writer listed them, “There’s sex. Aggression. Sex. Childhood fantasies. Sex. Traumatic events. Sex. Inner needs. Sex. Dreams. Oh, and sex.”18 That psychology still lacks a full and deep understanding of human nature, would not have surprised Sheen at all. He spent a lifetime teaching the Judeo-Christian doctrine of Original Sin, and the steps necessary to seek forgiveness and find peace and joy. Sheen’s brief essay on human nature and the differences between psychoanalysis and Confession in These Are The Sacraments ranks among his most appealing summaries of Catholic teaching.19 Sheen’s many attacks on pragmatism and moral relativism seem more poignant today than ever. In an era in which education at all levels is dominated by multiculturalism and deconstructionism, and the media consistently rejoice in the alleged absence of fixed moral standards, the need for moral absolutes seem to many imperative. When asked why he thinks moral relativism is the most important issue of modern life, Peter Kreeft replied, “Because a society holds together only through trust and promises and justice. And if we believe that these things are only rules of a game, that when anybody feels like going to bed he can say, ‘I’ll stop playing Monopoly now,’ then the obvious effects of moral relativism will be to do as you please.”

America’s Bishop

Like Freudianism, moral relativism has long been a tool for justifying sexual license. As Kreeft put it, “Most people are not yet moral relativists about any other area of human life, just sex. If it has anything to do with sex, you can’t possibly judge it or condemn it.”20 Sheen said and wrote the same thing throughout his life. The first two chapters of For God and Country, the discussions in Three To Get Married, and chapter eight of Peace of Soul are especially valuable examples. Sheen’s contribution to Vatican II, however modest, were positive and productive. His faith in the Council proceedings and the sixteen documents that emerged was a further reflection of his total confidence in the Church. His explanation of the turmoil following the conclave and his optimism about the future are provocative and persuasive. This interpretation was shared by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In 1984, he said, “I believe…that the true time of Vatican II has not yet come, that its authentic reception has not yet begun; its documents were quickly buried under a pile of superficial or frankly inexact publications. The reading of the letter of the documents will enable us to discover their true spirit. If thus rediscovered in their truth, those great texts will make it possible for us to understand just what happened and to react with a new vigor.”21 Perhaps Fulton had his old friend G. K. Chesterton in mind as he wrote about the state of the Church in the 1960s and 1970s. In The Everlasting Man, a book Sheen often assigned to converts, there is a chapter titled “The Five Deaths of the Faith,” in which Chesterton described the many incorrect predictions of the Church’s collapse over the centuries. “It is obvious that it has survived the most savage and the most universal persecutions from the shock of the Diocletian fury to the shock of the French Revolution. But it has a more

Living Intensely

strange and even a more weird tenacity; it has survived not only war but peace. It has not only died often but degenerated often and decayed often; it has survived its own weakness and even its own surrender.”22 The Church was indestructible, Chesterton thought, because it embodied the truth of the Christian faith. Sheen shared that hope and trust. In October, 1978, Sheen wrote a lengthy personal letter to an Anglican priest whose wife was balking about the financial sacrifice of leaving Canterbury for Rome. The young man also wanted to know about the state of the Church in a time of considerable turmoil. Sheen urged him to make a distinction between the Person of the Church and the Personnel of the Church. “The Person of the Church is the unity of Christ the Head, and its Body under Peter governed by the Holy Spirit. In other words, the Magisterium or the unity of Scripture and tradition as expressed by the Visible Head of the Church speaking in her name and addressing himself to all the faithful on the subject of faith and morals.” The personnel are all her members. Among the personnel are also ‘progressive’ Bishops, who contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium give Communion indifferently to those who accept the Magisterium and to those who do not. In this class also are priests who love to play like children in liturgical sandboxes, using wide phylacteries to attract attention, and playing games like executioners with dice as the Lord continues His Passion in the Mass; theologians who favor love without life when the Magisterium makes them inseparable; moralists who start with a revolutionary situation instead of with a revealed doctrine; the clergy who reduce Christianity to social and political development to

America’s Bishop

the utter neglect of salvation of the soul; in a word, all who would heal the man let down through the roof and forget that he had sins to be forgiven—these belong to the personnel of the Church. They are not always wrong; they are seldom heretical and sometimes they contribute new insights. But they are only the expression of individual and group opinion and quite distinct from the doctrine and morals of the Church. Sheen assured the young Anglican of his own complete confidence in the future. “In all the present tensions, I have never been disturbed. I have always relied on the Person of Christ expressing Himself through Peter.”23 The issue of Sheen’s canonization will be handled by the Church, of course, and is well beyond the realm of the historian. But he may note that those who knew Fulton J. Sheen well were and are nearly unanimous in their praise of his character, intellect, devotion, and energy. Father Michael Hogan, Sheen’s secretary in the Diocese of Rochester, said, “I would die for the man.” If you only knew, Hogan added, how much he loved Rochester and the Church. “He loved and cared. He was a man of prayer.”24 When asked if Sheen was a saint, Monsignor Hilary Franco, who lived and worked with him for several years replied, “Frankly, yes.” Franco stressed Sheen’s humility and his willingness to spend time with the “little people” all over the world.25 The seven major women in Sheen’s life adored him. One, Mary Baker, who knew him for more than half a century, called him “a marvelous man” who “did a wonderful amount of work for God.”24 Edythe Brownett strongly approved of the effort to canonize her long-time employer and friend. “I think he is worthy of it.” She called

Living Intensely

Sheen “truthfully magnetic” and told how he could enter a room full of people and change it. “He had the light and fire,” and what he did was “all for the glory of God.” She added, “He was born to do what he did, and he did it admirably.”27 There were others who shared this view. Loretta Young began to sob as she described the final years of a friendship that lasted some four decades. Joan Hartman Dalton, who worked closely with Sheen for nine years in New York, described her employer and friend as “fabulous” and believed him qualified for sainthood.28 Marian Cahill, whose friendship with Sheen lasted more than a quarter of a century, strongly favored his canonization. “Everything he did, every story he told, always reflected God. To us, he was like Christ walking on earth.”29 When Englishwoman Ann O’Connor, who knew Fulton from 1921 to 1979, was asked if she thought Sheen should be canonized, she hesitated not a second, stating with considerable emphasis, “Yes. He’s entitled.”30 Tom Holliger, who first met Fulton in 1939 said in 2000 that Sheen was “very saintly” and emphasized his warmth, humility, and generosity. His wife Yolanda added, “I was never happier than when I was with him.” There was “such holiness.”31 Tom’s mother, Reeda, who knew Sheen all of his life, already prays to him.32 Convert Mary Downing, who knew Fulton for more than a quarter of a century, also prays to him.33 It is remarkable, in retrospect, how few people who knew Fulton Sheen well were critical of him. Monsignor George A. Kelly, a long-time member of Spellman’s staff, considered Sheen a showman and a prima donna, but when asked if he was holy, Kelly replied, “Absolutely.”34 Bishop Edwin Broderick, who directed “Life is Worth Living” and accused Sheen of inventing data from time to time, not-

America’s Bishop

ed that he often saw Fulton in prayer, and he spoke of him with great respect.35 Historian-priest John Tracy Ellis, who worked for Sheen, lived with him, and knew him for more than 50 years, criticized Fulton in print for his vanity. Still, there was much adulation in his account of his many associations with Sheen. He noted at one point being impressed by his “steady work habits, his reading, his love and zeal for the Church and…his genuine thoughtfulness for those around him of whatever station in life.”36 Fr. David Finks, who broke with Sheen in Rochester over the St. Bridget’s case and other matters, later wrote, “My respect for Bishop Sheen remains. …It is enough that he helped when he did. In a time of ambiguity, he did some good things. That is not a bad epitaph for man, or a bishop.”37 As we have seen, Father D. P. Noonan was Sheen’s sharpest critic, writing two books that contained considerable negative commentary. Noonan had a chip on his shoulder: Fulton had fired him in the mid-1960s. He was also a liberal who resented what he thought was Sheen’s “party line” response to the challenges of his ideological heroes. Noonan’s impressions of his former employer are at times as questionable as is his historical account of Fulton’s life and times. Still, Noonan expressed admiration of Sheen for his fund-raising abilities, called him “basically a good man,” thought him “fascinating,” and admired his intellect, persuasive powers, and hard work.38 Fulton J. Sheen at no time claimed to be a saint. Indeed, he denied that he was holy.39 Sheen thought himself to be a mere sinner, and was constantly begging God to forgive him and to supply him with the grace to be holy and devote himself more fully and effectively to the work of the Church. Saints are made of such stuff.40 One who favors canonization, Father Patrick W. Collins, has written: “If…a saint is one who seeks every deeper friendship with

Living Intensely

God, then surely Fulton Sheen is one. If a saint is one who responds positively to the universal call of holiness, then surely he is. If a saint is a person who struggles with his or her own limitations, blindness and sinfulness, then surely he is. If a saint is one who leads others on the path of holiness, then surely he is. ‘By their fruits, you shall know them.’ ”41 That is certainly worthy of consideration. Fulton knew well that salvation was by faith through grace. But he also knew that the fruits of his faith would be judged; that, as St. Paul put it, “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.”42 He wrote in his autobiography, “God will judge me rather by how much I reflected Him, not only in work but in word and life.”43 Throughout his life he aimed at bringing himself and millions of others through the often sorrowful trials of mortal life into the joy of life eternal—the only life, to the serious Christian, that truly matters. He dared not rest, not even when hospitalized in agony or confined to his bed in old age. In the homily that marked his 60th anniversary of his ordination, Sheen told a few dear friends that the first thing he thought of to mark the occasion were the words of the prophet: “I have engraven thy name on the palm of My Hand.” He said, “Apparently in those days lovers used to put initials of the beloved on the hand and it would always be there. And so, I feel that Christ has done that to me.”44 With that mark of love came supreme responsibilities. Fulton J. Sheen believed himself called to live intensely for God and His Church. Pope John Paul II assured him at the end that he had fought the good fight. The historical record gives us confidence that this verdict is true.

America’s Bishop

ENDNOTES 1

Dieterich (ed.), Through the Year with Fulton Sheen, p. 14.

Copy, Fulton J. Sheen to Mary Nordeman, May 12, 1967, Mary Nordeman file.

Fulton J. Sheen, The Moral Universe: A Preface to Christian Living (Milwaukee, The Bruce Publishing Company, 1936), pp. 43, 45. 3

Sheen, Treasure in Clay, p. 183.

Stanley L. Jaki, Newman’s Challenge (Grand Rapids, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), p. 18. 5

John Keble, The Christian Year…Together with additional poems (London, Church Literature Association, 1976), pp. 156, 158. 6

Sheen, The Moral Universe, p. 64.

Acts 1: 12-14; Josemaria Escriva, The Way (Princeton, New Jersey, Scepter Press, n.d.), p. 27 [number 83]. 8

Dieterich (ed.), Through the Year with Fulton Sheen, p. 22. See Fulton J. Sheen, Missions and the World Crisis (Milwaukee, Bruce Publishing Co., 1963), pp. 187-93. 9

Pignedoli, “Guest Editorial,” Worldmission, Fall, 1969, pp. 4-5.

Palmer poetry, Marlene Brownett file.

Catholic Standard, December 29, 1979.

Pignedoli, “Guest Editorial,” Worldmission, Fall, 1969, p. 5.

“An Interview with a Moral Absolutist,” National Catholic Register, July 2-8, 2000, p. 11.

Quoted in Simple Truths: Thinking Life Through with Fulton J. Sheen (Liguori, Missouri, Liguori/Triumph, 1998), p. 112. 15

Joseph Komonchak to the author, June 19, 2000.

“Bishop Fulton J. Sheen—In the Memory of a Friend,” The Family, September, 1995, p. 10. 17

Los Angeles Times story by Usha Lee McFarling in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, June 26, 2000. See Paul R. McHugh, “The Death of Freud and the Rebirth of Psychiatry,” The Weekly Standard, July 17, 2000, pp. 31-6. 18

Sheen, These Are The Sacraments, pp. 67-70.

“An Interview With a Moral Absolutist,” National Catholic Register, p. 11.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger with Vittorio Messori, The Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 1985), p. 40. Cf. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth: The Church at the End of the Millennium, An Interview with Peter Seewald (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 1997), pp. 73-6, 256-61. 21

Living Intensely

G. K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man (Garden City, New York, Image Books, 1955), pp. 264-65. 22

Copy, Fulton J. Sheen to Michael Brierley, October 11, 1978, Sheen Correspondence, box 30, Sheen archives. 23

Michael C. Hogan interview, January 13, 1999.

Hilary Franco interview, March 19, 1998. See Hilary Franco, “Fulton J. Sheen: In Remembrance of a Master,” L’osservatore Romano, February 4, 1980, pp. 2, 18. 25

Mary Baker interview, October 28, 1999.

Edythe Brownett interview.

Joan Dalton interview, December 16, 1998.

Marian Cahill interview, July 8, 2000.

Ann O’Connor interview.

Tom and Yolanda Holliger interview

Reeda Holliger interview.

Mary H. Downing interview

George A. Kelly interview, January 4, 1998.

Edwin Broderick interview, March 27, 1999.

Ellis, Catholic Bishops, pp. 78-84.

Finks Dissertation, pp. 210, 212.

Noonan, The Passion of Fulton Sheen, pp. 80, 85, 107, 162, 169.

Dieterich (ed.), Through the Year with Fulton Sheen, pp. 166-67.

While I have been discussing sainthood as the product of the Church’s beatification and canonization, there is, of course, a sense in which all dedicated Christians, “the faithful,” are saints. The early Christians addressed each other as saints (Acts 9:13). Sheen spoke eloquently about becoming “saints to a certain degree” and of how such saints were made. See Patricia A. Kossmann (ed.), In The Fullness of Time: Christ-Centered Wisdom for the Third Millenium (Liguori, Missouri, Liguori/Triumph, 1999), pp. 108-113. 40

Patrick W. Collins to the author, January 17, 2000, Patrick Collins file.

2 Corinthians 5: 10.

Sheen, Treasure in Clay, p. 97.

Sheen homily of September 20, 1979, in the possession of Marlene Brownett.