  I was raised with an appreciation of English grammar. While I may not be an accomplished grammarian, from grade school on the importance of grammar was unmistakable. It began with the admonitions of the holy nuns who taught us that if we did not learn our grammar we would be consigned to a life of illiteracy indistinguishable from the indigenous peoples of some obscure locale. As an undergraduate studying philosophy, grammar assumed an additional importance. Without grammar the complex ideas would blur and meld together into some even more nebulous blob of primal thought. Finally as an Licentiate candidate, grammar has become increasingly critical. Without attention to proper grammar, one can quickly become a heretic when speaking about the natures of Christ or the Real Presence.
For example, we can say that Christ is physically present in the Holy Eucharist, but we cannot say that the Holy Eucharist is the physical presence of Christ. Ratramn of Corbie held this and similar positions and he was censured. Even Fr. John Fahey, a doctoral candidate who merely attempted to analyze this position almost suffered the same fate. While we no longer burn heretics at the stake, regrettably, we have lost the importance of distinctions and precision.
I guess if your life depended upon it, you would be sure not to split the infinitive. In happier times the threat of the rack would have caused us to stop and consider why the definite article has practically disappeared from modern theological conversations. Nevertheless, I have spent sleepless nights wondering why the definite article seems to have been banished from polite, i.e. theo-politically correct conversation. I propose two potential etiologies for the notable absence of the definitive article. First, maybe it is the lack of grammatical training in those who afflict us with such idiosyncrasy. This explanation falls short, however, for many who refuse to use the definite article should know better. These individuals, mostly middle aged to older people, were educated when the holy nuns still had a stronghold on the Catholic educational system. The second, and more probable, reason is the existence of an underlying ideological agenda to this grammatical nuance. I designate it a grammatical nuance, not error, because they are positing a positive idea by their omission. Admittedly, I do not believe that everyone who uses this modern church-speak is guilty of ascribing explicitly to this ideology. I will hold, however, that they are at least subconsciously affected by it. That having been said, I will now address the heart of the matter: the notable disappearance of the definite article is intrinsically related to the primacy of subjective experience over objective knowledge, and, in the extreme, outright denial of objectivity itself.
To characterize Catholics who refuse to use the definite article as individuals who deny objective reality is a bold claim, but consider an example. Two years ago I was at a dinner with a priest and nun; in between the nun ringing the bell for the servant, she was telling me how much she worked with the poor. As I was digesting that irony, she attempted to draw me into the conversation by asking "what is your experience of church? " The logical response would have been "which church? " But, at this point my actual retort is unimportant. Her question, on the other hand, is immensely important to the issue now before us. To which church was she referring? Christ's Church founded on the apostle Peter? The church begun by Luther? The church in the old Seven-Eleven storefront? Because she and I are both clearly members of the Catholic Church, I assumed she was referring to that Church. But if this is merely an incorrect syntactical contraction, why do we encounter such frequent absence of the definite article? Because she is not referring to Christ's Church! She instead is referring to the church of my experience. Like Kant, she holds that there is a great divide between the objective reality 'out there' and the subjective reality 'in my mind.
' The good sister does not seek my knowledge of the Church, but my subjective experience of the idea of 'church. ' This grammatical construct would not be so problematic if it were not so pervasive. After all, there is an element of profit in knowing the experiences of individuals. However, the notable omission is so widespread nearly always one hears about church, eucharist, sacrament, and the like, and almost never hears about the Church, the Eucharist, and the Sacraments.
Subjectivity is a very easy slope to slip down when clarion call of modernity is "individuals have a right to choose what’s best for them! " Maybe my critique of those who subscribe to theological political-correctness is too harsh, for even they will sometimes devalue my experience in light of a higher authority. You see, occasionally I reveal my 'experience of church' much to their consternation. For example when I explain that I grew-up with both the vernacular Novus Ordo and the indult Tridentine Mass along with both the Baltimore Catechism and the Documents of Vatican II, I am confronted with a diatribe of objective sounding-statements about how “Vatican II changed all that” and “you are pre-Vatican II” and so forth.
It turns out that an attempt at objectivity does trump the experience of some, but only when that experience is ideologically unacceptable. Had my aforementioned dinner conversation portrayed my “experience of church” as exclusively about social justice, I am sure that Sister would not have been nearly as condemning (unless of course, my version of social justice precluded her use of the bell to call the servant into the dinning room). At least there are a few liberals who have the intellectual integrity to say that one's experience is real, but they just don't like it. To them I say, thank you and I don't like to experience your version of church or grammar either. + 
