FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Rev. Michael Rodriguez transferred to another church
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
I feel bad for the parishoners there (you guys), but I know nothing will stop Fr. Rodriguez. That's why the independent chapels (falsely so-called) are still so necessary. The indult chapels get shut down overnight at the whim of the local heretic.
From Fr Zuhlsdorf:

"From this KVIA report, it seems that Fr. Rodriguez went to city council meetings and spoke his mind from his perspective.  I assume that Fr. Rodriguez is an American Citizen with 1st Amendment rights, and is a tax payer since he is a diocesan priest, and a resident in that city.  On the surface of it, he has a right as a citizen to speak his mind when it comes to how his taxes are used in that community.

From this report, it sounds as if Fr. Rodriguez confined himself in his remarks and in what he wrote to what the Church teaches.  I assume that, had he made a specific statement about a political figure or specifically how to vote, that statement would have been included in the report as evidence that he crossed a clear line into politics.

From this report, it sounds as if Fr. Rodriguez words were printed in the paper because in the context of an ad paid for by a private individuals with no connection of employment by the Diocese of El Paso or another Catholic entity.  Those people have 1st Amendment Rights and the paper accepted the ad and the money that came with it.

From this report, it sounds as if a Washington DC based group called Americans United for Separation of Church and State accused a local evangelical pastor “of using his church to advance the recall” of the local mayor because of the proposal to give benefits to homsexual “couples” in the same way married couples receive them.  In this report we read:

“(Father) Rodriguez has recently challenged certain city officials to participate with him in a partisan debate on issues related to an upcoming election,” said Ochoa. “This type of intervention in the political in the political process by religious organizations such as the Diocese of El Paso and San Juan Bautista Church is not permitted under Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code.“

I am not use what “partisan” means here.  It is often used to connote a strong and public political stance.  However, I suppose it could also be used to connote a strong public doctrinal stance.  Again, I did not read in the KVIA reportage that Fr. Rodriguez made partisan political statements in public.  He certainly made partisan doctrinal statements. Had he made specifically political statements, you would think that his statements would be prominently reported as evidence of having crossed a line.

I suppose that Fr. Rodriquez was perceived to be “campaigning” (my word) in a political sense for one of the sides in the upcoming recall election.

Context: a local religious group’s tax exempt status was being threatened by a Washington DC based group, …"
(09-21-2011, 10:41 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: [ -> ]Not familiar with Rodriguez, but this is a problem below:

Quote:The fliers also said, "Members of the City Council and the mayor have violated our rights and overturned our popular vote. We must hold our politicians accountable and insist that they truly serve our people."

That may be true for El Paso, I don't know. But would this ad fly in one of the many areas of this country, and other nations (even Catholic nations), where same-sex marriage and benefits have been accepted or voted in by the majority? Appealing to democracy in an argument like this is a big mistake.

And the whole thing seems really.... imprudent. Perhaps Rodriguez had the best interests of God and the Church in mind, but I don't see how anti-gay ads will change anyone's minds. On the contrary, people will take them the wrong way (as part of a hate campaign), and then you'll get banished by the bishop, who may very well be gay himself. It would have been better to stick to taking out well-written and reasoned columns in the paper.


I don’t see any evidence that Fr. Michael was involved in the distribution of said flyers, and he is not "anti-gay" as the article says. He is anti-homosexuality and pro-marriage. He is trying to defend the institution of marriage by expounding Catholic teaching. The only attack I see on his part is against any government trying to re-define marriage. As a priest does he not have the right and duty to speak out and defend one of Christ's sacraments?

I hope that the people of El Paso especially his parishioners storm the Bishop with letters , phone calls and emails and whatever else may help bring Fr. Rodriguez back, or at least to get them another priest to offer traditional sacraments and the TLM.
(09-23-2011, 10:43 AM)51olds Wrote: [ -> ]I don’t see any evidence that Fr. Michael was involved in the distribution of said flyers, and he is not "anti-gay" as the article says. He is anti-homosexuality and pro-marriage. He is trying to defend the institution of marriage by expounding Catholic teaching. The only attack I see on his part is against any government trying to re-define marriage. As a priest does he not have the right and duty to speak out and defend one of Christ's sacraments?

He has a duty to do that, and also a duty to do it effectively. To be more specific, a priest who takes it upon himself to challenge City Hall and get directly involved in politics has a responsibility to maintain his public image and how he spreads his ideas. Saying he wasn't involved in the distribution doesn't help. Besides, is there anyone in all of this country who ever picked up a flyer or saw a billboard against homosexuality and said to himself after reading it, "this has some good points"?

An article might not be read as much, but it would certainly do more good in the long run.

Anyway, I just think it looks like our good priest may have shot himself in the foot here. And perhaps I'm jaded by the harsh reality that a large number of our hierarchs are lascivious homosexuals and child rape enablers, and the lower clergy don't spend anywhere near as much effort on rooting out the evil within than they spend on the evil without.
+JMJ+

What about all the priests that openly speak against the Magisterium, your Fr. Pfleger's, the priests in dissent in Austria... Ireland... Canada... the US... those who continue to distribute communion to politicians who openly support same-sex marriage and abortion... those who openly block the promotion of the Latin Mass... those who seem to support the gay rights movements...

They are never transferred. They are never disciplined. Or so it seems...

To me, even if Fr. Rodriguez stepped into a political area he should not have... Does this warrant a transfer? Clearly, he is being punished. Suppressed. Or am I missing something here?

Fr. Altier's "transfer" comes to mind...
(09-23-2011, 12:22 PM)ruralpeace Wrote: [ -> ]To me, even if Fr. Rodriguez stepped into a political area he should not have... Does this warrant a transfer? Clearly, he is being punished. Suppressed. Or am I missing something here?

Well that’s what Im trying to figure out, did he clearly cross a line? Was he directly involved with those flyers. If the Bishop knows and has found evidence that he was, then most likely that is one major reason for him to decide to move Fr. Michael. Is it warranted? Im not so certain, but it does bring up a question of ‘who is the Bishop really trying to appease here’.
I think he could have found a different way of disciplining Fr. Michael than to banish him to the boonies.
(09-23-2011, 12:22 PM)ruralpeace Wrote: [ -> ]To me, even if Fr. Rodriguez stepped into a political area he should not have... Does this warrant a transfer?

No, I don't think so. Just saying this could have been avoided easily enough.
(09-23-2011, 12:22 PM)ruralpeace Wrote: [ -> ]Clearly, he is being punished. Suppressed. Or am I missing something here?

maybe he is being transferred to spread good?

is that isn't his excellency's reason for it it will happen anyway.
Perhaps he is being transferred to do some good. Or to protect him from the wolves...

His parish will no longer have the Latin Mass, will they (?). Not good.
(09-23-2011, 12:22 PM)ruralpeace Wrote: [ -> ]+JMJ+

What about all the priests that openly speak against the Magisterium, your Fr. Pfleger's, the priests in dissent in Austria... Ireland... Canada... the US... those who continue to distribute communion to politicians who openly support same-sex marriage and abortion... those who openly block the promotion of the Latin Mass... those who seem to support the gay rights movements...

They are never transferred. They are never disciplined. Or so it seems...

To me, even if Fr. Rodriguez stepped into a political area he should not have... Does this warrant a transfer? Clearly, he is being punished. Suppressed. Or am I missing something here?

Fr. Altier's "transfer" comes to mind...

Re Fr Altier... So (in case you didn't know) he's been the visiting priest at St Augustine's saying the TLM for a few years now.  He was teaching the adult conversion classes and then the bishop wouldn't let him teach them anymore...

So my fiance took her mom to the conversion classes with Fr Echert and guess what?  He played them dvd's of Fr Altier!  I wonder if the bishop knows....  :laughing:
Pages: 1 2 3