The main point of the article seems to be an attack on various “progressive” positions within Catholicism, on which I have no opinion.
Aside from that, I was strongly impressed by Fr Longecker’s description of how the ordination of woman, eventually to the episcopacy, was forced through the church of England by endless agitation and “dialogue”, when if fact the proponents only ever had one intention - to get everything they wanted, by any means. As a former Anglican, who saw this all first hand through the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s, I agree entirely.
Of course it was all done in a polite and “prayerful” Church of England type style. They were not arguing they were “discerning the way forward”
I wrote a piece some time ago over at Imaginative Conservative about the diabolical technique of talking opponents to death and how the evil one uses “dialogue” to wear down the opposition.
I have observed the same thing, ie. that “talking opponents to death” is a diabolical technique, but is also a very effective one, and is usually combined with forming an impregnable clique who keep saying the same things over and over, and with shaming of opponents. “Truth” becomes a matter of a vote, after the vote has been rigged.
I’ve seen this now in several major societal controversies, from both left and right, although the left are on a big winning streak at the moment.
For me, the only answer is to stop arguing when you see the pattern, and use authority (if you have some), or get out of their way.
From his referenced article on the Benedict Option
Likewise the conservative Christian option today is to step back from the endless dialogue and debate and to focus on being consistent and being Imaginative Conservatives…[We] will be committed to a way of obedience, stability and conversion of life, and our method will use the timeless tools of work, study and prayer.
Related to this is James Dobson’s admission in 2009 that conservative Christians have lost every battle.