Which are the liberal diocese in the US?

[Deacon_Ed]

Ann Cheryl:

It is interesting that you can’t “make that call” but can make the call that “we are dealing with the sin of detraction”

Anytime we take the good name of another that is detraction. And, yes, people have posted here their opinions as if they were fact and have, thereby, damaged the good name of a number of bishops. Yes, they have factually reported events – but then have interpreted the reason for the bishop’s action (usually guessing since they don’t have first-hand knowledge) and determined, based upon their imagination, that the bishop is not orthodox. And it is that to which I most strenuously object.

Yes, I know heresy when I hear it. I know what is permitted in liturgical praxis. But I will not permit an abuse in liturgy or what appears on the surface to be heresy to lead me to consider slandering an individual.

Deacon Ed

 

[cecelia]

Deacon Ed:

Well, then, good for you. I hold a doctorate in theology and can’t make that call. I’ve been ordained for over 10 years and can’t make that call. I have studied both Eastern and Western theology and liturgy and can’t make that call. Oh, sure, I know when something is amiss, but to call the entire diocese orthodox or heterodox would require that I visit every priest, every deacon, every parish, every bishop and see that nothing is orthodox.

Also, I would have to be sure that what I was calling heterodox was not simply an acceptable, but not often expressed, Catholic teaching. Gosh, too much for me but if you feel you are qualified to do so more power to you.

And since there are many here who have called bishops heterodox we are dealing with the sin of detraction.

Deacon Ed

Congratulations on your degree, but it doesn’t take a degree in theology to deduce that the bishop sets the tone for the diocese, and it doesn’t take a degree in theology to discern that abuses throughout a parish would have one infer that the diocese is unorthodox. The bishop has the reponsibility to go after the “lost sheep” and bring it back to the fold. That he doesn’t hasten to do so, but explicitly or tacitly allows the abuse to go on, would open up the charge that the diocese is unorthodox. What qualifications does one need to make that call? If one is incorrect, then the bishop needs to correct the misperception. So once again, thank you for telling us about your degree, but the issue is whether or not one can call a diocese orthodox or not. We can

 

[netmilsmom]

Perhaps people would also have less of a problem with the word “liberal” if one looks at the word with a small letter in the front. Start thinking of the word as a Adjective and not a Noun. That is the way the original question was written.

This is from the Free Dictionary on the net…

lib·er·al
*adj
***1. ****a. ** Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas.
**b. ** Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
**c. ** Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

**2. ****a. ** Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
**b. ** Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.

**3. ** Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
**4. ** Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
**5. ****a. ** Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
**b. ** Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.

*n
.***1. ** A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
**2. ** Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.

The usage is correct. I will from now on write (adj) whenever I write the word liberal rather than trying to be a Thesaurus.

 

[dennisknapp]

Does anyone know anything about Former Archbishop Weakland? I have heard that he was pretty fringe.

Peace

 

[frdave20]

Fast_ed75:

Dioceses known for a flourishing amount of heterodoxy: (not all inclusive)

Albany, NY
Rochester, NY
Saginaw, MI
Los Angeles, CA
San Francisco, CA
Santa Fe, NM
Rockville Centre, NY
Belleville, IL
St. Cloud, MN
St. Petersburg, FL
Louisville, KY
Cleveland, OH
Cincinnati, OH
Chicago, IL
Dallas, TX
Altoona, PA
Erie, PA
Honolulu, HI
Raleigh, NC
Richmond, VA
Joliet, IL
Seattle, WA

I am from the Richmond Diocese and yes it is known for it’s heterodoxy, thanks to its previous Bishop. However, we have a new bishop who is taking steps to bring the diocese into orthodoxy…

 

[msproule]

Deacon Ed:

We have two different issues here. The original permission for pouring the Precious Blood came from the CDW. The USCCB then took that permision and formulated it as particular law which was sent back to Rome and approved by the Holy Father. That law was then promulgated and became the law for the United States. I read it in *Origins *but cannot remember the date nor do I still have it around since I have limited storage space and don’t keep back issues.

But then why does Cardinal George not mention the Holy Father’s approval, if it was truly ever given? He only refers to that granted by the Congregation.

With all due respect, Origins is hardly an official Church publication.

But this is now off topic for this thread. I recommend we stop here.

 

[fix]

I found this letter and reply to be interesting regarding the topics in question:

**STANDS WITH MAHONY AND GEORGE **

Thank you for publishing my last note [see “http://www.losangelesmission.com/ed/letters/2004letters/0412lett.htm#tar”]Glass Carafes Not Reprobated,” Letters, December Mission]. As you may suspect, I do not agree with your conclusions, which seem somewhat subjective, but let me focus on three issues that, I feel, are more objective.

The first is the title given before my letter: “GLASS CARAFES NOT REPROBATED.” Nowhere did I suggest that “glass carafes” were not reprobated. In fact, I did emphasize that glass “chalices” WERE reprobated but that “carafes” were NOT explicitly reprobated. I think you or your copy-editor jumped the gun (and could be liable for defamation) by insinuating something not explicitly contained in my letter.

The second is the reference that Redemptionis Sacramentum was “promulgated by the authority of Pope John Paul II (not Cardinal Arize).” I think most canonical scholars would argue that an “Instruction” (see code of canon law, can. 34) is issued NOT by the pope (although with his permission, hence the “formula” used: a Congregatione … de mandato Summi Pontificis Ioannis Pauli II … exaratam “prepared by the Congregation … by the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II]”), but by one of the official dicasteries (“congregations”) of the Holy See, and only has the force of “explanation” of existing law but does not change law (see code of canon law, can. 34, sec. 2; also can. 20 and 21). Thus, it is legitimate for me to say that Redemptionis Sacramentum WAS, in fact, published (i.e., “promulgated”) by Cardinal Arinze and NOT by the Holy Father, since Cardinal Arinze’s signature (not the Holy Father’s) is the definitive signature on the document.

In fact (and law), the only time a pope actually issues a document that changes law is if he issues an “apostolic constitution” and signs it personally (e.g., see the apostolic constitutions at the beginning of the current Roman Missal, which promulgated the use of that missal, or the one at the beginning of the current code of canon law). Hence, I think, most legal experts would say that any instruction is NOT issued by the pope (although with his approval, sometimes tacit) and cannot change previously established papal law. Only a pope, by issuing an apostolic constitution, can change previously approved law.

The third is your reference to sec. 106 of Redemptionis Sacramentum. Latin scholars, canonists and some “pastors” have raised questions about the meaning of “vessels that are not fully in accord with the established norms” vasa, quae integraliter normis statutis non respondeant]. The question is what does it mean to have a “carafe or vessel that IS in accord with the established norm.” It seems that a glass carafe is out of the question (according to sec. 117 of Redemptionis Sacramentum), but does this permit a metal flagon, which has been made in accord with diocesan norms? The literal text is ambiguous and according to canon 21, “in a case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed…”

I find myself on the side of Cardinal Mahony and Cardinal George who may see some ambiguity in Redemptionis Sacramentum and are making legitimate pastoral exceptions in their roles as bishops, as allowed by canon law (can. 21, 87).

received via e-mail

*con’t…
*

 

[fix]

*Editor replies: Defamation? In his letter, published in the December Mission, Mr. T writes "that *Redemptionis Sacramentum says that the use of carafes should be ‘avoided’ because of the danger of spilling. It does not indicate that this is a ‘reprobated practice.’" Further on, he writes, “you might be also interested in knowing that what is explicitly ‘reprobated’ is the use of glass chalices.” The implication, it seemed to me, was that the instruction only reprobated glass chalices, not anything else made of glass. Thus if neither carafes nor anything made of glass save chalices are reprobated, then glass carafes are not reprobated. Thus, the headline.

*I will not quibble over the word "promulgated," but I will argue that the prescriptions of *Redemptionis Sacramentum *bear the authority of Pope John Paul II. Not only was the instruction prepared by Cardinal Arinze's congregation, "by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II," but, as the instruction itself says, it "was approved by the same Pontiff ... and he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned." Thus, the pope, not Cardinal Arinze, ordered the instruction to be observed by all, which "all," I presume, includes cardinal archbishops. Further, as an instruction, *Redemptionis Sacramentum* does not make new law; the document's footnote citations indicate that most of its prescriptions are reiterations of previously established law. Further, according to Canon 34( cited by Mr. T), instructions "are given for the use of those whose duty it is to see that laws are executed and *oblige them in the execution of the laws. *[Emphasis added.] Thus, *Redemptionis Sacramentum *obliges bishops in the execution of Church liturgical law.*

*I am happy Mr. T can go so far as to agree that glass carafes seem to be "out of the question." Metal carafes, if they are identical to "flagons" (and I see no moral difference), are also forbidden by the instruction. What is clear from the instruction is that the Blood of Christ is not to be poured from one vessel to another, thus precluding any carafe-like vessel for the Blood of Christ. But as for glass carafes — the instruction is also crystal clear; they are not permitted.*

*Cardinal Mahony's right under canon law to dispense from universal laws does not apply here. The use of glass carafes, for which he gave a dispensation, is forbidden, not simply by *Redemptionis Sacramentum *but by the *General Instruction on the Roman Missal*, from the provisions of which a bishop may not dispense without explicit permission from the Holy See.*

losangelesmission.com/ed/letters/2005letters/0502lett.htm

 

[mosher]

This reminds me of the discussion that was had about if JPII made an ex cathedra statement when he said that women could not be proper matter for ordination. The dubium was sent and the CDF responded in the affirmative that he had spoken ex cathedra. The next discussion was if the CDF could in their capacity confirm an ex cathedra statement without themselves having the same level of certitude. It tends to be a circular argument.

 

[fix]

mosher:

This reminds me of the discussion that was had about if JPII made an ex cathedra statement when he said that women could not be proper matter for ordination. The dubium was sent and the CDF responded in the affirmative that he had spoken ex cathedra. The next discussion was if the CDF could in their capacity confirm an ex cathedra statement without themselves having the same level of certitude. It tends to be a circular argument.

That is the debate right now. Some claim the appropriate congregation in Rome has no authority to exercise the authority delegated to it by the Pope in these matters. In addition, a fine distinction in the law is argued to allow an abuse to continue and claim it is not an abuse.

 

[mosher]

fix:

That is the debate right now. Some claim the appropriate congregation in Rome has no authority to exercise the authority delegated to it by the Pope in these matters. In addition, a fine distinction in the law is argued to allow an abuse to continue and claim it is not an abuse.

I know, I have been following it closely and by pointing out the similar situation (albeit not the same) perhaps perspective can be given. I don’t know if the further question was actually answered by the CDF so I am not aware of any presidence. Perhaps is this a question that should be directed to the Institution for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law.

I have no problem with the fine distinction because it is usually a fine distinction that is the difference between right and wrong. I think that since the question is formally unresolved by the Holy See the merits and demerits of the question that is before the Congregations would be a good discussion for us to discuss.

 

[fix]

mosher:

I know, I have been following it closely and by pointing out the similar situation (albeit not the same) perhaps perspective can be given. I don’t know if the further question was actually answered by the CDF so I am not aware of any presidence. Perhaps is this a question that should be directed to the Institution for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law.

I have no problem with the fine distinction because it is usually a fine distinction that is the difference between right and wrong. I think that since the question is formally unresolved by the Holy See the merits and demerits of the question that is before the Congregations would be a good discussion for us to discuss.

The distinction I was referring to was the weight we are to give to R.S. I should be more careful with my wording. The distinction is not one that is seen as a legitimate reason to disobey RS by some.

 

[mosher]

fix:

The distinction I was referring to was the weight we are to give to R.S. I should be more careful with my wording. The distinction is not one that is seen as a legitimate reason to disobey RS by some.

If I were a pastor of souls I would be more restrictive than permissive with liturgical rules as Bishop Bruskawitz governs his See. However, such things are not left to me and they are to the Local Ordinary. So, I would mostly agree with Deacon Ed here on a point of law considering that as Sacrosanctum Concilium states “the Bishop is the head liturgist in his diocese.” This of course is governed by certain restrictions imposed by the Holy See. Yet, it would seem to me that what is licit law is indeed licit usage and because RS addressed the Universal Church it would not teat on the specifics of Particular Law. However, in the dubium asked to the CDW such considerations would have been made in the response so the prudent course would be to follow the directives of the CDW yet it is true that the question at hand remains and while it is under discussion the prudent course would be to follow the response of the dubium until a final judgment has been given. Yet again, for all intents and purposes such a judgment is up to the Local Ordinary.

 

[buffalo]

mosher:

If I were a pastor of souls I would be more restrictive than permissive with liturgical rules as Bishop Bruskawitz governs his See. However, such things are not left to me and they are to the Local Ordinary. So, I would mostly agree with Deacon Ed here on a point of law considering that as Sacrosanctum Concilium states “the Bishop is the head liturgist in his diocese.” This of course is governed by certain restrictions imposed by the Holy See. Yet, it would seem to me that what is licit law is indeed licit usage and because RS addressed the Universal Church it would not teat on the specifics of Particular Law. However, in the dubium asked to the CDW such considerations would have been made in the response so the prudent course would be to follow the directives of the CDW yet it is true that the question at hand remains and while it is under discussion the prudent course would be to follow the response of the dubium until a final judgment has been given. Yet again, for all intents and purposes such a judgment is up to the Local Ordinary.[/QUOT*E]

Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat.

How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!

Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able.

 

[sanpablo]

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.

Well, Portland is, I guess, a little liberal in terms of the people who live there, but the bishop is by no means liberal.

 

[BayCityRickL]

YinYangMom:

Well then, which diocese allow their parishes to teach outside the magisterium?

• Uses “she” to refer to God
• Allows several people to come to the altar to join in the consecration
• Teaches that abortion, birth control, euthanasia, ESCR, and cloning are not ‘always’ to be avoided
• Allow openly active gay couples to hold ministry positions in the church

Basically, the ones who are misleading their followers in the teachings of the Church…

Yup, that’s exactly it. That’s why I don’t attend Mass anymore in the Diocese of Saginaw, even with a new bishop who is supposed to be an orthodox bishop. I have it in writing from him that he doesn’t support the Catechism.

 

[YinYangMom]

BayCityRickL:

Yup, that’s exactly it. That’s why I don’t attend Mass anymore in the Diocese of Saginaw, even with a new bishop who is supposed to be an orthodox bishop. I have it in writing from him that he doesn’t support the Catechism.

Have you sent a copy of the letter to the archbishop??

 

[mosher]

sanpablo:

Well, Portland is, I guess, a little liberal in terms of the people who live there, but the bishop is by no means liberal.

Yes, I know Archbishop Valzney. What I would address as his problem is the problem with most US Bisops and that is their seemingly unwillingness to excercise their right of vigilance and root out in an definitive way liberalism in their diocese.

 

[msproule]

BayCityRickL:

…even with a new bishop who is supposed to be an orthodox bishop. I have it in writing from him that he doesn’t support the Catechism.

Rick,

Could you please elaborate?

 

[fix]

mosher:

So, I would mostly agree with Deacon Ed here on a point of law considering that as Sacrosanctum Concilium states “the Bishop is the head liturgist in his diocese.”

But when Redemptionis Sacramentum

appeared in April - the disciplinary instruction called for in Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia - the response was markedly different…

 Among liturgical progressives, the analysis seems to be that continuing to fight the battle at the level of structures is pointless. Instead, the goals in coming months will be to *protect existing practice* as best they can, so that individual dioceses or parishes can preserve models of a renewed Liturgy, and to keep doing the scholarly reflection that will build the record for a time when the debate can be reopened. (Online column Dec 6, 2002, emphasis added.)

In other words, proceed as if Rome had not spoken. The reaction of the progressives to the new instruction was mostly silence, or comments that it contained nothing new. Yet there is a steadfast resistance to implementing RS, along with an attempt to justify the existing practices that it prohibits…

Redemptionis Sacramentum is an “instruction”, whose purposes are defined in the Code of Canon Law, Canon 34 §1, which Huels cites: Instructions clarify the prescripts of laws and elaborate on and determine the methods to be observed in fulfilling them. They are given for the use of those whose duty it is to see that laws are executed and oblige them in the execution of the laws. Those who possess executive power legitimately issue such instructions within the limits of their competence. (emphasis added.)

Yet, behind the hairsplitting and minutiae of “legalese” that decorates his article, Huels seems chiefly concerned with assuring liturgists that their local policies are not overturned by RS. Like the “progressives” that John Allen interviewed, he wants to “protect existing practice”. He insists: Like the decrees of the conference of bishops, diocesan laws and policies are also not affected by instructions, even if contrary to them… Moreover, executive power can be freely delegated (canon 137), for example, to the head of the diocesan liturgy office. Thus legitimate diocesan laws and policies of executive power remain in force, even if contrary to a provision of RS. (p. 410, emphasis added)

Bottom line? In Huels’s opinion, “the head of a diocesan liturgy office” trumps the Holy See in “executive power”. A bishop may establish policies and issue decrees “even if contrary to a provision” of the Holy See’s explicit instruction to the contrary. And a bishop may freely “delegate” his power to a member of his chancery staff. Liturgists are free to continue their own policies, even when they conflict with RS, according to Huels.

This may be a boost to a liturgist’s ego, but it causes considerable consternation for others. People who suffered liturgical abuse in their parishes for years placed great hope in RS – a promising sign that “help is on the way”. Imagine their dismay when abusive liturgical practices are promoted or protected by a bishop…

Cardinal Arinze Defends Authority
According to the September 2004 BCL Newsletter published by the US Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, several bishops claimed that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW) did not have the authority to modify the US* Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America*. These Norms, approved in 2001, had permitted flagons and pouring; but were corrected to conform to RS this year. The CDW was not free to require changes after it gave recognitio, they argued…

Please see:

adoremus.org/0904LiturgicalReform.html