Which are the liberal diocese in the US?

[Rand_Al_Thor]

mosher:

Portland, Santa Fe, Gallup, San Antoinio, Las Cruses … actually I think it would be easier to say who is not liberal dioceses as there would be a smaller number cited.

As far as Milwaukee is concerned it all determines how far it has come since the retirement of Bishop Weakland. However, while he was the Bishop I would have placed it in the extremely liberal category.

Peace be with you!

I’m going to have to disagree with the first diocese on your list. Your location says you’re in NM…have you been to Portland before and attended Mass here? Do you know Archbishop Vlazny? I don’t think of him or Portland as being a liberal diocese.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[netmilsmom]

erinozak:

i really think the question is a bit of a red herring, not very fruitful and perhaps a little uncharitable. i think we need to be charitable and humble in our postings

The word “Liberal” has become a bad word.
I don’t think of it as a label but rather a classification.
How about the word, “Progressive”? Or “Innovative”?

If not, what word could we use to describe a Diocese that allows parishes to push the envelope? I tried at one time to get a word to describe the opposite type of parish and no one could get into agreement.

 

[cecelia]

mosher:

Deacon,

With all due reverence this statement is absurd.

What’s happening here is the liberal arguement about “fairness.” It’s not fair to criticize, and in that way the person who seeks to right the wrong is silenced. “I’m not qualified to say” the person says who seeks to squash dissent,with the implication being that only those who are “perfect” can speak or offer remedies. Well the truth is none of us is perfect, but that doesn’t prevent us from knowing what is right and what is wrong. We know what orthodox is and we know what isn’t. We may not have the fine points down, but we can spot illicit Masses and unorthodox practices, and if we see them we will comment.

Some dioceses are unorthodox in that they do not adhere to Church teachings, so therefore we as the laity have a right and duty to point this out. This false sanctimony regarding the “I’m not qualified to judge” position is just a way for dissent to silence orthodoxy. Suppose this “I’m not qualified to judge orthodoxy” position had been the stance of the Church Fathers. Could you imagine St. Jerome or St. Irenaeus or Origen et al. letting this disingenous phrase slipping from their lips?

I don’t think so. No they were not perfect, and no they didn’t know everything, but yes they were qualified to judge and proclaim and declare anathema that which did not follow Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

The underlying premise that only those that are all-knowing, and all-perfect can talk only freezes any remedying of a problem while simutaneously fostering dissent. Of course no one is perfect but God. So in the meantime I will speak about about heterodoxy. I will question what does not seem right. I will research and read, and I will not display this feigned air of humility which is really a sense of superiority regarding what’s orthodox and what’s not.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

The word “Liberal” has become a bad word.
I don’t think of it as a label but rather a classification.
How about the word, “Progressive”? Or “Innovative”?

If not, what word could we use to describe a Diocese that allows parishes to push the envelope? I tried at one time to get a word to describe the opposite type of parish and no one could get into agreement.

Maverick?

 

[netmilsmom]

JKirkLVNV:

Maverick?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

cecelia:

What’s happening here is the liberal arguement about “fairness.” It’s not fair to criticize, and in that way the person who seeks to right the wrong is silenced. “I’m not qualified to say” the person says who seeks to squash dissent,with the implication being that only those who are “perfect” can speak or offer remedies. Well the truth is none of us is perfect, but that doesn’t prevent us from knowing what is right and what is wrong. We know what orthodox is and we know what isn’t. We may not have the fine points down, but we can spot illicit Masses and unorthodox practices, and if we see them we will comment.

Some dioceses are unorthodox in that they do not adhere to Church teachings, so therefore we as the laity have a right and duty to point this out. This false sanctimony regarding the “I’m not qualified to judge” position is just a way for dissent to silence orthodoxy. Suppose this “I’m not qualified to judge orthodoxy” position had been the stance of the Church Fathers. Could you imagine St. Jerome or St. Irenaeus or Origen et al. letting this disingenous phrase slipping from their lips?

I don’t think so. No they were not perfect, and no they didn’t know everything, but yes they were qualified to judge and proclaim and declare anathema that which did not follow Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

The underlying premise that only those that are all-knowing, and all-perfect can talk only freezes any remedying of a problem while simutaneously fostering dissent. Of course no one is perfect but God. So in the meantime I will speak about about heterodoxy. I will question what does not seem right. I will research and read, and I will not display this feigned air of humility which is really a sense of superiority regarding what’s orthodox and what’s not.

My intent was never to “squash” anything. But to suggest that it is right for the laity to question without them asserting that something is an abuse or a violation. Most of the posts that I’ve seen here and elsewhere asserting a liturgical abuse were, in fact, legitimate options exercised by the priest that were not what the individual liked. That is, an abuse was defined as something other than the poster’s preference.

Certainly there are abuses and the laity not only have the right to question such practices, but to bring their concerns to the appropriate authorities.

At the same time, to judge a diocese (which is what this thread is about) is not within the competence of anyone except the bishop who heads it and the pope. One may question, one may even object to practices which seem (or are) to be heterodox, but one may not claim that a diocese is “liberal” (that’s a political term which really has no equivalent in theological terms).

Deacon Ed

 

[mozier]

A diocese with very heterodox/liberal practices?

Look no further than the Archdiocese of Seattle.

Radical men-hating feminist nuns, clown masses, liturgical dancers, very loose and experimental liturgies (I remember a mass that was once done with balloons and puppets!), terrible kumbaya church music.

Yes, this one has it all.

 

[netmilsmom]

mozier:

A diocese with very heterodox/liberal practices?

Look no further than the Archdiocese of Seattle.

Radical men-hating feminist nuns, clown masses, liturgical dancers, very loose and experimental liturgies (I remember a mass that was once done with balloons and puppets!), terrible kumbaya church music.

Yes, this one has it all.

PUPPETS?!? Well it’s not specifically stated in the rubics so…

Although, I think the Mine Group performing the Stations at one of our local churches is close. Mind you, I couldn’t bring myself to go and see it. When I mention it sometimes, I get, “Well, maybe it was done in good taste.”
All I can think is, “It’s a mine group for heaven’s sake!!! Mime and Stations of the Cross should not be in the same sentance.”

 

[buffalo]

Deacon Ed:

Authority for what? Judging a parish? That belongs to the bishop and to him alone. Judging a priest or deacon? That belongs to the bishop and to him alone. All authority in the diocese resides in the bishop except as he delegates. That delegation is normally to the priests and deacons to whom he entrusts the care of souls (cura animarum) of some of the faithful in his diocese.

Deacon Ed

RS calls for:

1. Complaints Regarding Abuses in Liturgical Matters

[183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.

[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.[290] It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.

---

I agree the Bishop has authority. Some of the judgement comes as a result of observation and feedback. But it certainly seems clear to me that if I witness severe abuses and heterodox decisions I can judge for myself. Some things are really obvious.

 

[buffalo]

MaryAgnes:

One woman said that to be truly orthodox a woman would cover her head when she entered the church and only men would have liturgical functions!

I’m with you deacon Ed. For my part, I think too much judgment comes from those who reminisce about the past and have no theological training in the present.

Theological training in the present - euphemism for enlightenment?

 

[MrS]

mosher:

It is also absurd to think that NO goers are liberal as the Pope celebrates them.

The reason why I stated that the statment was absurd is because something can be judged objectivelly wrong liberal or uber-trad just as something can be judged objectivelly correct. Without any qualifyers the statement is absurd.

Exactly…and we are compelled to judge error…oops, I should say abuse+abuse+abuse+abuse = norm.

 

[mosher]

Rand Al'Thor:

Peace be with you!

I’m going to have to disagree with the first diocese on your list. Your location says you’re in NM…have you been to Portland before and attended Mass here? Do you know Archbishop Vlazny? I don’t think of him or Portland as being a liberal diocese.

In Christ,
Rand

Yes, I attended Mount Angel Seminary … Portland is one of the most difficult diocese out there.

 

[muledog]

Deacon Ed:

But, as I have pointed out time and again here, parts of RS do not apply to the United States because an instruction does not override particular law. And unless one has actually studied canon law and read the authentic interpretations of the canons one could form the wrong impression of what the law actually says. Futher, even the GIRM is subject to interpretation by the Church and not by the laity, or even a lowly deacon.

Also, there are numerous legitimate options in the Liturgy that one needs to know well before one claims that a particular thing at a liturgy is an abuse or not (look at the number of post here where people are claiming an event is an abuse when, in fact, it is permitted).

Social justice issues are important. So is work on prohibiting embryonic stem cell research. The problem with the latter is that it quickly becomes a technical issue in explaing what is and what isn’t permitted (for example, the body of a still-born baby may be donated to science and then work may be done on any surviving stem cells). So, again, if the article isn’t written clearly it can easily convey the wrong message. This is not to defend saying nothing, however.

So, as I was saying, I’m not competent to say a diocese ir orthodox or not. Even if the bishop isn’t, there may be orthodox priests and deacon who are struggling against the tide to bring the correct teachings of the Church to their people.

I think this is a very dangerous area of inquiry.

Deacon Ed

I think we are splitting hairs here. Most people understand that liberal/progressive/heterodox = disregarding the rules, and conservative/traditional/orthodox = following the rules.

It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out what “da rules” are. Most people know that allowing nuns/sisters to preach the homily every Sunday during Mass is contrary to liturgical law.

Most people know that using ordinary bread for Communion is wrong.

Most people know that supporting the “gay lifestyle” is wrong.

Most people know that supporting abortion and contraception is wrong.

To make a long story short, it doesn’t take a canon lawyer to figure out the leanings of your bishop/priest/diocese/parish.

Most people know that bishops can be heterodox, and parish priests orthodox (and visa-versa). I wish we would give more credit to the laity than we do. I get tired of progressive intellectuals always telling me, “It’s over your head. Let us figure it out for you. We know what’s best for the Church”

P.S. - I’m still not sure which parts of RS you are referring to. The only section of particular law that was in conflict with RS - the use of flagons and pouring of the Sacred Blood - was changed, so that it now conforms with the universal law.

 

[mosher]

cecelia:

What’s happening here is the liberal arguement about “fairness.” It’s not fair to criticize, and in that way the person who seeks to right the wrong is silenced. “I’m not qualified to say” the person says who seeks to squash dissent,with the implication being that only those who are “perfect” can speak or offer remedies. Well the truth is none of us is perfect, but that doesn’t prevent us from knowing what is right and what is wrong. We know what orthodox is and we know what isn’t. We may not have the fine points down, but we can spot illicit Masses and unorthodox practices, and if we see them we will comment.

Some dioceses are unorthodox in that they do not adhere to Church teachings, so therefore we as the laity have a right and duty to point this out. This false sanctimony regarding the “I’m not qualified to judge” position is just a way for dissent to silence orthodoxy. Suppose this “I’m not qualified to judge orthodoxy” position had been the stance of the Church Fathers. Could you imagine St. Jerome or St. Irenaeus or Origen et al. letting this disingenous phrase slipping from their lips?

I don’t think so. No they were not perfect, and no they didn’t know everything, but yes they were qualified to judge and proclaim and declare anathema that which did not follow Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

The underlying premise that only those that are all-knowing, and all-perfect can talk only freezes any remedying of a problem while simutaneously fostering dissent. Of course no one is perfect but God. So in the meantime I will speak about about heterodoxy. I will question what does not seem right. I will research and read, and I will not display this feigned air of humility which is really a sense of superiority regarding what’s orthodox and what’s not.

You state my point perfectly.

 

[MrS]

I know there is Scripture verse to state this: that we will recognize the good because we have the bad to compare it to.

So, if Kennedy, Kerry, Granholm, Gumbleton. and Bishops-in-error, et al say it is okay, we know it is not, and should act (or re-act) accordingly/

 

[mosher]

Deacon Ed:

My intent was never to “squash” anything. But to suggest that it is right for the laity to question without them asserting that something is an abuse or a violation. Most of the posts that I’ve seen here and elsewhere asserting a liturgical abuse were, in fact, legitimate options exercised by the priest that were not what the individual liked. That is, an abuse was defined as something other than the poster’s preference.

Certainly there are abuses and the laity not only have the right to question such practices, but to bring their concerns to the appropriate authorities.

At the same time, to judge a diocese (which is what this thread is about) is not within the competence of anyone except the bishop who heads it and the pope. One may question, one may even object to practices which seem (or are) to be heterodox, but one may not claim that a diocese is “liberal” (that’s a political term which really has no equivalent in theological terms).

Deacon Ed

Deacon, I don’t think that you realize this but this smakcs of clericalism. St. Thomas taught and the Church upheld the following:

“When there is an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects.”
–St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica II, II, q. 33, a. 4

When one is speaking about liberal or conservative, heterodox or orthodox then there is not graver danger not only in questions of heresy but also in discipline because Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi and as discipline errodes so to does heresy creep in. If the Local Ordinary is not watching well then his flock will be taken by the wolves, so it is necessary for the sheep to fight against the wolves themselves if their sheepherd is inept.

Further, one can judge a Diocese because a Diocese is a juridical person. Just because individuals in that diocese are ortodox or heterodox is not fully baring on the objective asociatin given to the diocese itself. Such a qualifyer as liberal should only come after careful observation of general practices abd policies in the diocese and the over all governance of the parishes and the state of the presbyterum. Of course this criterium is not exhaustive but it is a start.

I agree with a previous post that stated that sometimes a qualifyer of liberal is given for bad liturgy. It is not directly that bad liturgy equates to heterodox behavior however it is an indicator that must be looked at in order to make a sound judgment.

 

[fix]

mosher:

Deacon, I don’t think that you realize this but this smakcs of clericalism. St. Thomas taught and the Church upheld the following:

“When there is an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects.”
–St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica II, II, q. 33, a. 4

When one is speaking about liberal or conservative, heterodox or orthodox then there is not graver danger not only in questions of heresy but also in discipline because Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi and as discipline errodes so to does heresy creep in. If the Local Ordinary is not watching well then his flock will be taken by the wolves, so it is necessary for the sheep to fight against the wolves themselves if their sheepherd is inept.

Further, one can judge a Diocese because a Diocese is a juridical person. Just because individuals in that diocese are ortodox or heterodox is not fully baring on the objective asociatin given to the diocese itself. Such a qualifyer as liberal should only come after careful observation of general practices abd policies in the diocese and the over all governance of the parishes and the state of the presbyterum. Of course this criterium is not exhaustive but it is a start.

I agree with a previous post that stated that sometimes a qualifyer of liberal is given for bad liturgy. It is not directly that bad liturgy equates to heterodox behavior however it is an indicator that must be looked at in order to make a sound judgment.

Clericalism is alive and well. How is it that in such an advanced culture, with so many educated people and so much access to Church documents that some believe the laity cannot see the obvious and come to a reasonable conclusion?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

mosher:

Deacon, I don’t think that you realize this but this smakcs of clericalism. St. Thomas taught and the Church upheld the following:

“When there is an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects.”
–St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica II, II, q. 33, a. 4

When one is speaking about liberal or conservative, heterodox or orthodox then there is not graver danger not only in questions of heresy but also in discipline because Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi and as discipline errodes so to does heresy creep in. If the Local Ordinary is not watching well then his flock will be taken by the wolves, so it is necessary for the sheep to fight against the wolves themselves if their sheepherd is inept.

Further, one can judge a Diocese because a Diocese is a juridical person. Just because individuals in that diocese are ortodox or heterodox is not fully baring on the objective asociatin given to the diocese itself. Such a qualifyer as liberal should only come after careful observation of general practices abd policies in the diocese and the over all governance of the parishes and the state of the presbyterum. Of course this criterium is not exhaustive but it is a start.

I agree with a previous post that stated that sometimes a qualifyer of liberal is given for bad liturgy. It is not directly that bad liturgy equates to heterodox behavior however it is an indicator that must be looked at in order to make a sound judgment.

Well reasoned. Would that everyone used their terminology with your precision! This portion of the good deacon’s post, however, is still patently true, at least in these forums:

“Most of the posts that I’ve seen here and elsewhere asserting a liturgical abuse were, in fact, legitimate options exercised by the priest that were not what the individual liked. That is, an abuse was defined as something other than the poster’s preference.”

 

[muledog]

Dear Dennis,

I live in the Lafayette-in-Indiana diocese. Our bishop (+Higi) is very progressive in matters liturgical. He was the chairman of the diocesan liturgy committee back in the '60s which implemented Sacrasanctum Concillium and post-Vatican II liturgical directives. Many people feel that he is afraid to “undo” much of what he personally wrought during the late '60s and '70s. The “spirit of Vatican II” still haunts our chancery.

If you write a letter to the bishop concerning liturgical abuses, you will most-likely receive a form letter stating that “Bishop Higi has the utmost trust and faith in Father K’s abilities as pastor of St. M, and he supports Father K’s decisions regarding the implementation of liturgical norms in his parish.”

Bishop Higi is a vocal supporter of “inclusive language” in liturgical and Scriptural texts. He also authored a policy letter stating that anyone who kneels to receive communion is “dissenting from the mind of the Church.” This letter was later rescinded after widespread negative press caused the Holy See to refute this claim in a protocol letter published in the Adoremus Bulletin.

Issues have come up in the past few years regarding his tacit support of at least one alleged child molester in the early days of his leadership of the diocese. There was a scathing newspaper series about it in the Indianapolis Star in 1997.

Many young, orthdox local men seeking ordination to the priesthood have had to go elsewhere to follow their calling, because Bishop Higi and his “formation crew” have consistently turned tradition-minded men away from their vocations.

This has changed during the past couple of years with the appointment of a truly orthodox priest to head the diocesan vocations program. Seminary enrollment is at its highest level since this bishop took office in 1984.

Bishop Higi refused to allow the celebration of the “Traditional Latin Mass” in our diocese until forced to do so by the Holy See in 2001. Even then, he relegated the Mass to Tuesday evenings at 7:00pm, and forbid any mention of it in the diocesan newspaper. This is surprising, since several positive articles about the Mass have appeared in the secular newspapers since then.

So, on a scale of 1-10 (1 being +Rembert Weakland and 10 being +Fabian Bruskewitz), I would rate our bishop a 3, our pastor a 2, and our diocese as a whole a 4.

 

[mosher]

JKirkLVNV:

Well reasoned. Would that everyone used their terminology with your precision! This portion of the good deacon’s post, however, is still patently true, at least in these forums:

“Most of the posts that I’ve seen here and elsewhere asserting a liturgical abuse were, in fact, legitimate options exercised by the priest that were not what the individual liked. That is, an abuse was defined as something other than the poster’s preference.”

Very true. I find it unfortunate that some would argue that options provided in the titles found in the Book of Rites, GIRM, et al the liturgical documents that are petaining to the Liturgy are liturgical abuses. I fear that sometimes liturgical discussions come from a sense of nastalgia or feeling rather than reason. Reason dictates that the Church has full authority to determine Liturgical formula within the bounds provided in the Sacra Docrina and it is not my place to question the Church when she organizes liturgical actions. However, it is my place to question the implamentation if it is not congruent with said documents. I also have a right to question if it is more fitting to use the Gradulae Romanum rather than Other Hymns in the liturgy. While both are acceptable options per Musicam Sacram one is more fitting than the other even though very few parish or diocesen liturgists have ever read Musicam Sacram in my experience. So, in this light the Deacon is very correct and all ignorance in such issues should be fleshed out so that truth can surface in any discussion rather than arguments steming from emotional attachments to red or white votive candels or bust.