Friday, October 23, 2009

The Agenda...

(Retitled from Fr. Longenecker's "The Slippery Slope: How Satan spreads his lies")
.
1. Natural Law is ignored, undermined or made to look stupid by particular instances where it seems not apply.


2. Subsequently religious and civil authorities have their laws questioned because they are 'too strict' too 'black and white', 'unworkable' or 'lacking in compassion'.

3. Relativism is therefore introduced. An understanding gradually grows that 'there are no objective rule' that apply to all people at all times.

4. Individualism is the next step. 'I guess I have to decide what is right for me in my situation.'

5. Sentimentalism: People who live in a sinful situation demand that they not be judged. They deserve compassion and understanding. They are nice people really...but they have a problem. They're sick. They're wounded. Who are you to judge?

6. Dialogue is demanded. "You need to listen to us and to our stories. Then you will understand we are just like you."

7. Once sympathy is won, the goalposts are moved. Now they are not 'sick' or 'wounded' they're just 'different'. They expect to be accepted despite their 'differences'.

8. Equal rights are expected by those who are acting against God's law. "We are not asking you to approve us. We are simply asking you to tolerate a difference of opinion. Simply allow us to be who we are!"

9. Equal rights are demanded. Legislation and lobbying and protests are now in order. The pressure group for sin starts to get aggressive. They do so out of 'hurt' and 'woundedness.' Once they get their 'rights' (they claim) they will be happy and won't be so aggressive.

10. Tolerance being won, they will not stop. They now demand not only that you tolerate, but that you approve. They've moved from being 'sick' or 'wounded' or 'disabled' by their condition to tolerance, and now they proclaim their condition to be 'good'. As Thomas More was not allowed to remain silent on the King's 'great matter' but had to approve, so the presssure group insists on approval.

11. What was once tolerated now becomes mandatory. Society must integrate the new morality into every level--right down to schools and churches and scout groups. Everyone must adopt the new morality or suffer.

12. Persecution of those who resist.

13. Devil's real happy. - Fr. Longenecker
.


BTW - As expected, the Senate just passed the hate crimes bill... "To assure its passage after years of frustrated efforts, Democratic supporters attached the measure to a must-pass $680 billion defense policy bill the Senate approved 68-29. The House passed the defense bill earlier this month.  Hate crimes law enacted after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1968 centered on crimes based on race, color, religion or national origin.  The expansion has long been sought by civil rights and gay rights groups. Conservatives have opposed it, arguing that it creates a special class of victims." - Source
.
H/T Adrienne for the link to Fr. Longenecker.

13 comments:

  1. I think I'm going to go right out and call someone a bad name. Nigger? Dago/Wop (that's me and I'm offended, doncha know), Mick, Kike? I can really have a good day and keep very, very busy...

    ReplyDelete
  2. oh yeah - I'm stealing that list and posting it. I love Father L (he's cute)...

    ReplyDelete
  3. michael r.12:56 PM

    I read this on his blog this am. He is relatively new to me. I found it curious & daring that a priest who is married, and has been the subject of such obvious exception to the "rules", is so adamant that others must adhere to rules.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Michael ~ He's an Anglican who converted to the Catholic Church and after a period of formation was ordained a Catholic Priest. He FOLLOWED the rules and embraces all of those in the Church. The same "exception" that is being granted to any Anglican Priest who converts if he is already married.

    Had he been a celibate Anglican priest, he would be expected to remain celibate.

    He also doesn't outright support a married priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church. (You do realize, don't you Michael, that there are MANY different Rites, including Byzantine, that have a married priesthood? The discipline of celibacy is in the Roman Catholic Church and works just fine, thank you.)


    Terry ~ great post. I am often in the position of being aware of objectively grave sin, and have to correct it. The importance is finding the balance; listening, understanding, but NOT condoning. I had to point out this week a situation of grave sin (ie mortal sin).

    It can be done, and this person is working to correct the problem, not wallow in it or order everyone else to do the same thing or accept what is going on as right.

    I very much agree with what you've posted. That's exactly how it all happens.

    We all have to be careful not to be sucked into it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There have been a goodly number of married protestant ministers come into the Church in the last 20 years or so who have been ordained priests.

    Many of them have been guests on Marcus Grodi's "The Journey Home" program on EWTN on Monday nights (7 p.m. Central).

    I have the impression that most of them have not been assigned to parish work by their bishops.

    Father Longenecker is the chaplain of a high school in South Carolina (near Bob Jones U where he got his BA before moving to England and becoming an Anglican).

    However, there is a married Catholic priest in our archdiocese assigned to a parish in a small town. He was a Lutheran minister.

    ReplyDelete
  6. michael r.3:02 PM

    Sorry, but I find it quite odd that someone who has been subject to such dramatic exception to the rules is lecturing on the evils of relativism and individualism. I'm not making any judgement on him. I understand most of the rules for ordination, eastern rites, and all of that. I've had friends going both ways, in and out of the priesthood, etc. He's as free to opine on his blog, as anyone else is. I just find it very surprising; that is all. His superlative 'red herring' post, a few weeks ago, helped dispel some of the mandatory celibacy myths. http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2009/10/married-priests_05.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. ...but I find it quite odd that someone who has been subject to such dramatic exception to the rules...

    Michael, you still don't understand fully. Fr L. did follow the rules as they applied to his situation.

    And you are making a judgment. You're implying that he has no standing to talk about relativism and such because he is an exception to the rules. If anything, he is an exception to the norm - but being an Anglican first makes his circumstances different than a cradle Catholic becoming a priest.

    Terry - there are some days I believe the threshing floor is going to have a lot more chaff than wheat. Knowhutimean?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Michael,

    You clearly do not understand. There are no rules being "excepted" here at all.

    Married men being ordained to the priesthood has NEVER been ruled out in the Church. St Peter himself was married when he was ordained to the priesthood; Byzantine Rite married men may be ordained; married protestant ministers converting to the Church may be ordained; among other incidences.

    But ordained men getting married has NEVER been allowed in the Church and never will. Not even permanent deacons who are married when they are ordained into the deaconate...if their wives die they cannot remarry.

    ReplyDelete
  9. michael r.7:43 AM

    Father L. was following all of the rules while operating as an Anglican priest. We understand that. Who cares? His ordination was not recognized as valid by the Chuch, which is all that matters. The church which ordained him, and which he felt a vocation to, was (and is) in a formal state of heresy. I understand that once he chose to swim the Tiber he had to have his situation regularized. His ordination into the Catholic Church is most definitely an extreme exception to the normal rules for ordination of priests, whether you want to accept that or not. He is a married man. There is not a single married man of Roman background who can be ordained. Do you not find that curious? I think the vast majority of Catholics do - and will - as we will see what happens in the next few years with this new business. Why is it that no one dare suggest to these men that they follow the examples of the many of the married saints who seperated when feeling drawn to the religious life? There are ancient and modern examples.

    There are also thousands of Roman Catholic priests who have been dispensed from their vows in order to be married. Many of these men have children who are now grown, and no longer dependent on them for support. Will the Catholic Church now bring them back into it's service in order to help keep parishes open, and so that the sacraments can be made available? I rather suspect that most Catholics would much rather see such men brought back into the service of the Church, who had real vocations to the priesthood of the Church instituted by Christ, rather than take such chances on men who have come across the river, having spent years operating in a church founded by Henry VIII, rejecting Vatican I, Papal Infallibility and the Marian dogmas, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I've never understood the concept of hate crime. If I beat the snot out of my neighbor, I'm not loving him. If I verbally insult him while whapping him over the head I'm somehow committing a worse crime. That makes no sense.

    ReplyDelete
  11. +JMJ+

    I rather suspect that most Catholics would much rather see such men brought back into the service of the Church, who had real vocations to the priesthood of the Church instituted by Christ, rather than take such chances on men who have come across the river, having spent years operating in a church founded by Henry VIII, rejecting Vatican I, Papal Infallibility and the Marian dogmas, etc.

    That's a dangerous statement, Michael. First of all, are you saying Father Longnecker doesn't have a real vocation to the priesthood because he received the grace of conversion after he was married?

    Secondly, do you mean to say that a priest's decision to leave the service of the Church for a woman is not enough evidence that he and his superiors might have wrongly discerned his "real" vocation?

    ReplyDelete
  12. michael r.7:58 PM

    Is my statement dangerous? Why? I am simply speculating that most Catholics would feel more comfortable welcoming back priests who had left years ago, after being properly dispensed by the Church, than with priests who came in under extraordinary circumstances -- men who first felt "called" to vocation in service of a church that is not Catholic -- doesn't accept the dogmas mentioned, and whose vocations and ordinations were not recognized as being valid by the Catholic Church.



    Yes, there are plenty of Catholic priests who left service voluntarily or involuntarily, with or without dispensation, and there's no question but that many, if not most, didn't have a vocation in the first place. (I'd further contend that many working in vocation direction don't have a clue what they are doing. Real vocations are lost every day, while plenty of people are given a chance who shouldn't be let in. It all depends on how you hit it off with the person sitting at the desk...)



    I don't know much about this particular priest, and I am not attempting to make any judgement on his character. He may be an exceptional priest and a real saint. I hope so. I sure hope he did in fact have an authentic vocation to the priesthood of the Catholic Church. That's an exceptional situation, no doubt. Isn't it strange that anyone of Roman background who happens to believe that they have an authentic vocation to the priesthood isn't allowed to even get heard, if they are married, and wish to remain so? It can't be done, period, but meanwhile we're welcoming in these others, but only as long as they are from another church? We don't dare require that ex-Anglican and ex-Lutherans be formally seperated from their spouses before they are ordained to the priesthood?

    ReplyDelete
  13. +JMJ+

    Michael, by "dangerous" I meant that it did sound as if you were advocating that Father Longnecker should be defrocked immediately. So I guess "dangerous" was the wrong word; I should have used "arrogant."

    Yes, we are welcoming "these others," as you so tellingly put it, and I don't know why that's a big deal. Since we have married Catholic priests in Eastern rite churches and would likely offer Orthodox priests the same deal if they converted, I can't see why it's a problem when it comes to the Anglicans. And not all former Protestant pastors are automatically ordained Catholic priests, anyway. In EWTN circles alone, I can think of several who used to be ministers and are now "just" laymen.

    Isn't it strange that anyone of Roman background who happens to believe that they have an authentic vocation to the priesthood isn't allowed to even get heard, if they are married, and wish to remain so?

    Actually, no, it's not strange at all. I think it's really far fetched to say that a man who grew up with the Latin rite, where celibate priests are the norm, would begin a whole new process of discernment after his wedding day. That is, I doubt married men of Latin rite backgrounds ever discover a vocation to be both husbands and ministerial priests. It's not that they aren't "allowed" to get heard; it's that we don't hear a single peep.

    ReplyDelete


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. Be sure and double check if your comment posted after you do the verification deal - sometimes it doesn't print if you made an error.