Fulton Sheen enthusiastically promoted Vatican II’s Modernist reforms

Traditional Catholics looking back at the mid-twentieth century have held Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen in high esteem for decades. For many, he remains the gold standard of Catholic apologetics — a brilliant orator, a witty media pioneer, and a defender of the faith who used the technology of his day to bring millions to the doorstep of the Church.

Before the Second Vatican Council, Sheen’s writings and sermons were, for the most part, built on theological bedrock; his prose was impeccable, his anti-communist rhetoric seemed robust, and his defense of perennial Catholic dogma was virtually flawless (It is noted, however, that at that time he was supportive of using the vernacular in the liturgy). Yet, an honest examination of his tenure as Bishop of Rochester from 1966 to 1969 reveals a troubling reality.

Sheen post–Council

When the theological winds changed at Vatican II, Sheen changed direction like a weather vane, casting a long shadow over his reliability as a safe resource for Catholics. The contrast between Sheen’s pre-conciliar brilliance and his experiments in the Diocese of Rochester is stark.

Prior to the Council, Sheen faithfully and eloquently reflected the magisterium of the popes of his era. But when it sought to alter pastoral approaches and liturgical traditions, Sheen did not stand with the small minority of prelates who resisted the encroaching Modernism. Instead, he enthusiastically “went off the rails” with the Council, reflecting the views of the post-conciliar popes and adopting the novelties of the post-conciliar Church with an alarming zeal.

Nowhere is this shift more evident than in his approach to ecumenism and the Mass. Despite the clear strictures of the 1917 Code of Canon Law forbidding the faithful from actively participating in non-Catholic rites, Sheen began frequenting Protestant pulpits and events. In 1972, he even appeared on Robert Schuller’s “Hour of Power” at the Crystal Cathedral, telling a roomful of Protestants that they were spiritually inside the Church of Christ. This directly contradicts traditional dogma on the necessity of the Church for salvation and the definition of the Mystical Body of Christ. Prior to the Council he had never said such things.

Sheen’s liturgical governance in Rochester flagrantly ignored established custom and canon law. He actively promoted a “Mass-in-the-Home” program ¹ , even celebrating Mass himself on a common dining room table where non-Catholics were present. ² He authorized experimental “primitive” liturgies at local party houses ³ , allowed Protestant choirs to sing at his Masses ⁴ , and granted permission for non-Catholic ministers to participate in mixed marriage nuptials. ⁵

Perhaps most concerning was the theological relativism that began to seep into his written work. In his post-conciliar autobiography, Treasure in Clay, Sheen wrote that good Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims are saved by Christ through the “sacraments” and “asceticism” of their own false religions. This erroneous statement contradicts the fundamental Catholic truth that such religions have no salvific power.

Sheen’s alignment with the “Spirit of Vatican II” extended far beyond the changes in the Council’s documents. He traded his fierce anti-communism for the progressive, class-warfare rhetoric of the New Left, even appointing a Saul Alinsky-backed radical priest as his vicar to the poor. ⁶

Under his leadership, Rochester’s diocesan newspaper dropped “Catholic” from its title. ⁷He also introduced highly controversial, biological sex education programs into parochial schools despite severe parental backlash. ⁸ He even attempted a radical integration of the diocesan seminary, St. Bernard’s, with two local Protestant seminaries. Under Sheen’s plan, Catholic seminarians would have been taught, in part, by Protestant instructors. At a Synod of Bishops in Rome, Sheen went so far as to advocate for global seminary reforms that would allow laymen to be “running” them, claiming that they often possessed a “deeper spirit of faith” than priests. ⁹

There are good reasons why Fulton Sheen should not be considered for beatification

When confronted with the catastrophic fallout caused by these innovations, Sheen, like many architects of the Council, seemed entirely blind to the root cause. He lamented that the Church was suffering from “demonic forces,” yet failed to see that it was his own administrative and liturgical novelties that were dismantling the faith of his flock. ¹⁰ His progressive policies caused immense turmoil, alienating local conservative clergy and families alike, eventually leading to his abrupt resignation after only three years.

What, then, are Catholics to make of Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen? We cannot deny that his pre-conciliar books, such as Life is Worth Living or The Divine Romance, contain highly profitable and holy insights. While much of what he did and said after the Council seems extreme, the fact of the matter is he was no worse than many of his fellow post-conciliar bishops. But the reason why it is so noticeable is how far this Modernism was compared to his traditional roots.

Because his theological foundation shifted so drastically onto the sands of Vatican II, Sheen cannot be viewed as a universally safe or definitive resource. When contemporary Catholics blindly cite Sheen as an unassailable hero of tradition, they inadvertently validate the very Modernism he championed in his later years. His tragic capitulation to the spirit of the age serves as a warning.

For those seeking untainted Catholic truth, quotes and resources must be drawn from sources built entirely on bedrock, rather than from a prelate whose brilliance was ultimately obscured by the fog of the post-conciliar revolution. Bottom line: don’t look for heroes in the Novus Ordo Church; you probably won’t find any.

1. (Citations taken from Newspapers.com and NewspaperArchive.com) The Catholic Courier Journal (Rochester, NY), July 21, 1967 ↩︎
2. Democrat and Chronicle (Rochester, NY) March 14, 1969 ↩︎
3. Democrat and Chronicle, (Rochester, NY) July 17, 1967 ↩︎
4. Democrat and Chronicle (Rochester, NY) June 10, 1967 ↩︎
5. Courier-Journal (Rochester, NY), March 14, 1969 ↩︎
6. Des Moines Tribune, January 3, 1968; The Call, January 4, 1967 ↩︎
7. The name change occurred at the end of March, 1968. The name was changed from The Catholic Courier Journal to Courier-Journal. ↩︎
8. Catholic Courier Journal (Rochester, NY), March 17, 1967 ↩︎
9. The Catholic Courier Journal (Rochester, NY), October 20, 1967 ↩︎
10. Catholic Courier Journal (Rochester, NY), March 17, 1967 ↩︎