How it's done

Ever wonder how the Church was brought to its knees, and now almost universally kowtows to the leftist orthodoxy?

It wasn't by accident.

As any conqueror, from Hannibal to Hitler knows, you don't attack the whole force at once. You identify key strategic positions and you go after them.

And if you're a Gramciist Communist, you do it real sneaky-like.

Our old bloggie buddie Ttony of the Muniment Room explains how it was done in Eng/Wales

...most of the Bishops had been formed in the old days, and both believed in and valued their independence. Although the Bishops’ conference existed as an entity, it was fairly toothless. But if Hume and Worlock could force the Bishops to cede “sovereignty” to the Conference and could then replace them (through a complaisant Nuncio) as they reached 75 with a new breed of new-thinking Bishops, they could transform the Church in England and Wales.

The NPC [National Pastoral Congress - basically the October Revolution for the English Catholic Church] was designed to effect this change: to use the numbers of engaged lay people and compliant priests to design and build new structures for the Church. To anybody who remembers “entryism” in the Labour Party – the way in which Party structures were taken over by the “new Left” – the methodology is familiar.

And, I have observed, this is how politics works everywhere:

The Bishops were few in number, but the Council was not binding on them. They were being manoeuvred by Hume and Worlock (and their agents) into a position where the cost to them of rejecting the most extreme propositions the Congress would propose would be the acceptance of limitations to their autonomy by the creation of stronger structures within the Episcopal Conference and a greater role for lay activists within these structures.

You see this method used all the time if you watch politics closely enough. For example, most obviously in Italian secular politics. Activists in... ah... a particular lobby/special interest group, will want to get a major legal concession, for example, the existence of a huge, systemic problem of "discrimination" against, say... left-handed mini-golf players.

The activists propose a 50 page bill that is jammed with the most outrageous curtailments of public freedoms; say for example, anyone who tries to sell a right-handed golf club to a LHMGP will face twenty years in prison for "discrimination". And there is no "objective test" as lawyers say, the existence of an offence is left up to the feelings of the LHMGP who perceives the discrimination.

This monster of a bill is presented in the House of Deputies, and the usual suspects, for all the right reasons, start screaming about civil rights, freedom of speech and belief and whatnot, and the activists respond with "reluctant" concessions. Until the bill has been shaved of 90% of its outrageous idiocy, and everyone is now talking about this discrimination as though it were a real thing, and a grave danger to millions of citizens, yay, even unto civilisation itself.

Shaved-down bill passes, after much shrieking and howling in the Lower House, and after the LHMGP lobby has denounced it as "toothless".

And Voy-lah! We have invented an entire new thing in law that can be watered and cultivated carefully over the years and made to grow, and grow and grow...



~