First, the medium picture. I have expressed to friends privately my opinion that this “resignation” is not a done deal. If I am right, this is good news for Fr. Long’s supporters and bad news for his opponents (like me). My past experiences with the diocese lead me to this conclusion. We thought, for example, that a meeting with the diocese was a “done deal” only to have the diocese cancel it and refuse to reschedule. Since the bishop has arrived, the policy of the diocese on Fr. Long has been clear: stonewall the opposition. Thus, what is obvious to me is that this “resignation” is by no means voluntary on the part of the bishop or Fr. Long. They are doing this as a response to the pressure coming from the opposition: the letters, the emails, the phone calls, the requests for meetings, the music director’s resignation, etc.
And the BAA boycott. Those who have sent letters about Fr. Long know that the bishop’s policy has been to ignore them—with one notable exception. Those who sent letters expressing their support for the boycott received a quick response with the bishop’s personal signature on the letter. Don’t kid yourself—the boycott got the bishop’s attention—the resignation came the very week that the boycott was announced.
To anyone paying attention, it should be obvious that the “resignation” was forced by a strong opposition. The conclusion I draw is this. If the opposition weakens, or is perceived to have weakened, Fr. Long may stay at St. Andrew’s after all. If the opposition stops writing letters, and supporters start writing them, and if the boycott poll swings in favor of Fr. Long, I am not at all convinced that we will see a resignation at the end of February.
Just take a look at the comments at this website and look at the boycott poll. Long’s supporters are much busier than the opposition. This isn’t over, and Fr. Long’s supporters know it.
The big picture is this. As I showed back in October, (here, here) the modernist apostasy that Fr. Long promotes already has a firm grip on the church hierarchy. And as Pew research has documented, this modernist gospel “that science has replaced the Bible” is emptying the Catholic Church: 6.5 Catholics leave the Church for every person that enters, and science-inspired skepticism was among the chief reasons for leaving:
About half of current religious “nones” who were raised in a religion (49%)
indicate that a lack of belief led them to move away from religion. This includes many respondents who mention “science” as the reason they do not believe in religious teachings, including one who said “I’m a scientist now, and I don’t believe in miracles.” Others reference “common sense,” “logic” or a “lack of evidence” – or simply say they do not believe in God.
Thus Long’s message that St. Paul was wrong, that Jesus didn’t know everything because he wasn’t divine, that the Church’s teaching on sexuality is harmful, and that science ought to replace the Bible is not winning souls for the Church—quite the opposite, as reason and logic would expect.
Fr. Long is indeed a breath of fresh air—FOR ATHEISTS. The claims being made by his supporters on this website just don’t add up. There just are not that many people clamoring to sign up with “The Church That Is Wrong About Everything.”
The bigger picture for Long’s opposition, as I see it, is not St. Andrew’s at all. And it’s not Fr. Long either. It is this poisonous heresy of modernism which we must confront. It is robbing souls of their salvation and it is robbing people of their mental health and stability, as I argue in my book. And today this heresy just got a fresh boost of energy from the publication of Steven Pinker’s much anticipated book, Enlightenment Now. I will be discussing this book soon.