There is a scene in one of the Die Hard movies where Bruce Willis is getting into an elevator with a bunch of Eurobaddies pretending to Americans. The Eurobaddies are intent on putting an end to the movie series by killing Bruce. Ah, but Bruce picks up on few little things that give him the advantage.
One of them calls the elevator a lift instead of, well, an elevator and another handles his cigarettes funny. Based on this evidence alone, Bruce quickly comes to the conclusion that these security guards are likely not American after all. So if they are not American, he surmises, well they must be Eurobaddies and he promptly dispatches them all to the great beyond.
What saved Bruce from an untimely demise? The dead giveaway. Keep this in mind.
Perhaps you have heard the story already about an El Paso priest who wrote an op-ed to the local newspaper. In his article, Fr. Michael Rodriquez said things that from a Catholic point of view that are undeniably true.
Remember: Every single Catholic, out of fidelity to charity and truth, has the absolute duty to oppose (1) the murder of unborn babies, and (2) any and all government attempts to legalize homosexual unions.
Any Catholic who supports homosexual acts is, by definition, committing a mortal sin, and placing himself/herself outside of communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
There is more and you should read it. For his defense of Catholic teaching in the matter the good priest was publicly rebuked by his Bishop in the same paper. His Excellency Most Rev. Armando X. Ochoa, Bishop of El Paso wails and apologizes about the incivility of the neanderthal Fr. Rodriguez. Check out Father Z for a line by line dissection of the original letter and the Bishop’s response.
However, as a result of this I fear there may be many priests out there who would like to defend the Church but now fear similar rebukes to the one suffered by Fr. Rodgriguez. So how can a priest in good standing know if his Bishop is really a Eurobaddy just pretending to be Catholic while he takes you down the elevator of death? Well just like Bruce, you need to look for the dead give-away. And fortunately there is one.
Let’s return to the the rebuke written by Bishop Ochoa. While most of the piece is obvious there is one subtle giveaway that if it had been detected in his writing prior to this incident may have saved the good priest some grief. Let’s look at it.
“As Church we want to journey with everyone as they search for meaning in their lives.”
Seems innocuous enough, right? But the devil is in the detail. As Church we want to journey says the Bishop. As what? Church. Not THE Church? No just Church. But where is the definite article? Aha, now you are on to something.
For reasons I cannot fully explain, progressive Eurobaddies abhor the definite article when referring to THE Church. Saying THE Church conveys history, truth, and authority–all things antithetical to the progressively pastoral. By removing the definite article, progressives hope to remove any sense of such unpastoral authority. They prefer that you think of the Church as an autonomous collective, a sort of anarcho-syndicalist commune in which we take turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
But there you have it. This is the easiest way for you to discover if your Bishop is really just a progressive Eurobaddy in disguise ready to pounce on you when you least expect it.
So what then? What do you do if, while scouring the writings of your Bishop, you discover reference to the indefinite Church? I can’t answer that for you but the Bishops should be glad the Bruce is not a priest.
August 24, 2010 at 2:55 pm
There's also the TV interview here at Lifesitenews.com.
"In response to the controversy caused by Rodriguez's columns, Darren Hunt of ABC KVIA 7 interviewed the priest alongside Pifas Silva, an open homosexual and former Catholic who is member of several local homosexualist groups."
Gerry
August 24, 2010 at 2:59 pm
This is bad news for Latin authors, who have access to neither definite nor indefinite articles.
August 24, 2010 at 3:02 pm
another sign – fliers about women priests in the chancery cafeteria
August 24, 2010 at 3:04 pm
@Ad-yeah, but at least you can spell in their language without all these silly American rules!
Seriously though, the part of THE journey is to realize that every theological step you take must be grounded in truth based on THE one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Faith. Otherwise, you just end up at a dead end (or as a Protestant attempting to drown yourself in Holy Water, call it what you will.)
August 24, 2010 at 3:14 pm
That was a favorite Monty Python quote of mine!
August 24, 2010 at 3:37 pm
What an incredibly destructive and myopic consideration of our clergy members. I am usually pretty good at picking up sarcasm, even when it is presented in heavy doses, but I get the feeling from this article that the author is serious; which is seriously unsettling. Encouraging others to discard a prelate's complete offering of self for the salvation of souls based on gramatical preference is abhorent and should be strongly discouraged. I sometimes think that living in "a bubble", distant from what is really going on in the world, we lose persepective and turn to petty infighting over rediculously unimportant details. Let's get real about what is going on in our world and fight the good fight!
I would also like to know when the word 'progressive' became a derogatory term in (THE) Church… Was JPII progressive? Was Mother Teresa progressive? Was Christ progressive? The truth remains the same, but the presentation is constantly evolving, as it should. Let's not stifle the Holy Spirit, who is constantly new, while unchanging and eternal. (warning: mystery present).
August 24, 2010 at 3:38 pm
"As Church we want to journey (1) with everyone (2) as they search for meaning in their lives (3)."
1. Journey: Implicit in this word in the modern vocabulary is that you are not sure where it will lead. You're on a voyage of self-discovery. He is verging on "Eat, Pray, Love" territory. (ugh)
2. With everyone: Ecumenical alert!
3. Search for meaning in their lives (sic): This does not sound innocuous: as christians we do not need to search for meaning in our lives. We are to love God and each other and get ourselves and as many others as possible to heaven. What's to search for? Not saying it's easy, but search for meaning, it's not.
The fact that this sounds so innocuous shows how commonplace this outlook has become. Heaven help us.
August 24, 2010 at 3:59 pm
If this is the "easiest" way, it is no wonder that some of us don't know whether or not our bishop is "progressive".
August 24, 2010 at 4:25 pm
@Anonymous 10:38 AM with the (1,2,3)–Exactly!
@Patrigin 10:37 AM…abhorrent has 2 r's.
August 24, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Ah yes those progressive bishops are still alive. Back in Vatican II, they "joked" that the only animal in the council is the Papal bull because, during the writing of the dogmatic constitution of the Church, Lumen Gentium, the Pope had to interject and make explicit that THE CHURCH subsists in the Catholic Church – as opposed to that amorphous spiritual entity of believers.
"This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth".(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity."
August 24, 2010 at 5:08 pm
It should be obvious to everyone not dead or in a coma that saying "We are Church" reveals a different attitude toward the Catholic Church than saying, "We are members of the Catholic Church – the Mystical Body of Christ." Saying the first thing implies, as Mr. Archbold pointed out, a disconnect with history and with the Catholic Church's real identity, which is the same now as it was from the beginning.
Like it or not, the way people use words reveals a lot about their intentions, their understanding and their general mindset.
August 24, 2010 at 5:15 pm
I marvel that you can write that Bishop Ochoa wails and apologizes about the incivility of the neanderthal Fr. Rodriguez, which simply is not true, and then you link to Fr. Z's balanced and nuanced commentary (in which he acknowledges that he doesn't have all the facts the Bishop does and declines to make the judgment you have here). Did you even read it? Weigh this editorial against the sum of Bishop Ochoa's pastorate before you use it to pillory him. A fair survey will conclude that he is an orthodox shepherd of his people.
August 24, 2010 at 5:36 pm
I believe that some folks are missing the whole picture here. The letter
written by the Bishop of El Paso was directed not at Fr. Rodriguez
specifically, but also at the barrage of responses it elicited in the El
Paso paper–some less than orthodox and many claiming to speak for
the Church. Apparently at least one letter objecting to Fr. Rodriguez'
op-ed was written by a priest.
So Bishop Ochoa wades into the breach with a letter reminding every-
one involved that, as he put it, "previous columns claiming to speak
for Catholic Doctrine were the personal opinions of individuals". In
short, his letter was not a public smackdown directed solely at the
excellent letter written by Fr. Rodriguez, but a reminder to all of the
folks weighing in–some who were unorthodox and uncharitable
indeed–just who in El Paso gets to speak in the name of the Church.
August 24, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Having read both letters, the smear against the bishop is completely uncalled for.
It is clear from the whole of his letter, and not merely some out-of-context snippet that one might want to jump all over, that the bishop's concern is not the underlying substance of the priest's letter, but the perceived harsh tone.
The priest's letter is indeed raw red meat for those who are always looking for a fight, e.g. Fr. "Z," but that is hardly the most persuasive method for making one's points. The bishop recognizes the imperitive of speaking truth as a grave matter of charity, but speaking even uncomfortable truths does not always require bashing people over the head with a baseball bat.
It can be done in a more gentle fashion. It can be one that encourages those opposed to Church teaching to walk with the Church, rather than encourage them to get defensive and continue to war against her.
All that the bishop was concerned with here was a matter of tactics and tone.
And, while we are at it, how can you tell if a person is a progressive? You can tell they are if they think it seemly and proper to mock and bash one of the successors of the Apostles.
August 24, 2010 at 5:59 pm
WB,
I did not question the Bishop's orthodoxy, I commented on his word choices. His word choices, both in his use of 'pastoral' and 'Church", are indicative of a point of view I do not share.
If it is unfair to say that the Bishop sounds like a progressive, I suggest that he choose not to speak like one. Best to avoid any confusion.
August 24, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Don't let it come as a surprise that the liturgies in most El Paso parishes are definitely irreverent, borderline sacreligious, and the homilies nearly heretical.
It should also not be a suprise that His Excellency cannot boast of any more than 1 seminarian in his diocese in the last decade or so… a border city with a huge influx of Catholics that is constantly being poached without much resistance by the charismatic and Pentecostal Protestants (because there isn't much difference in the worship style, so why be Catholic and have to grapple with sin?).
A couple of years ago, when I saw the grim statitistic of 1 seminarian over the course of several years under his reign, I took a gander at the official diocesan web site. I was not surprised when I could not find the Name of Christ readily available, but the Mission Statement and financial goals of the diocese were splashed up on the front page.
Bp. Ochoa would make a great accountant, judging by his writings… but, obviously, not so much a bishop of the Catholic Church. No wonder there are so many underfed and misled Catholics in total disarray in that diocese. Very sad.
-Joe
August 24, 2010 at 6:49 pm
"Any Catholic who supports homosexual acts is, by definition, committing a mortal sin, and placing himself/herself outside of communion with the Roman Catholic Church."
If this is an accurate paraphrase of his article, then what he said is not "undeniably true." At the risk of being nit-picky, what is defined here can't be blanketly defined as a mortal sin. Mortal sin requires a grave matter, knowledge and intent. Now, I would have no problem calling this a grave sin. However, you cannot assume knowledge or intent the way the act is defined.
I think this falls into the modern trap of only considering mortal sin a big deal. All sin is a big deal, and going around calling things mortal sins when they are not in order to emphasize the importance only plays into the modern misconception that sin is not a big deal as long as it is venial.
August 24, 2010 at 7:24 pm
To quote the good Father:
Any Catholic who supports homosexual acts is, by definition, committing a mortal sin, and placing himself/herself outside of communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
Actually, he is wrong. It can be a grave matter to do so, but the conferral of mortal sin on, say, gay marriage, happens only in certain conditions that must be met.
August 24, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Patrick Archbold writes: "By removing the definite article, progressives hope to remove any sense of such unpastoral authority. They prefer that you think of the Church as an autonomous collective, a sort of anarcho-syndicalist commune in which we take turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
"
You know all this from the use of a single word? Amazing. There's another word on which you might want to spend some reflecting: love. As in John 13:34-35, 15:12,17, maybe 1John 4:7. Stuff like that.
I don't see very much of that in this discussion, but I pray that your heart of stone may be softened by the one who reached out to sinners. All sinners.
God bless.
August 24, 2010 at 8:08 pm
Ding Ding Ding! Great pickup!