That's deacon, teacher of theology and Catholic film critic Steven Greydanus. You catch that? First, note the use of the euphemistic leftwing media endorsed term 'gender affirming care.' That is, more honestly stated, sex change procedures, in the case of this discussion being used on minors. But you can't say that because the overwhelming majority of Americans don't approve of turning underage boys into girls and vice versa. We won't even discuss how fringe the unpopular idea is that parents should be barred from being part of such life altering procedures.
But note, he appears to have no problem with laws that would keep parents out of the loop as long as actual surgery isn't involved. That opens the door for all of those preliminary procedures involving puberty blockers and messing with their hormones and physical development in the name of transgender activism. Which, from what I read, he is more than happy to support as well as keeping parents out of the loop in those cases. That's hardcore left beyond what even some on the left will tolerate. And, in a dose of irony, contrary to Pope Francis's opinions about the subject.
Basically, Greydanus continues to demonstrate that he will completely follow the Left, embrace it entirely and defend it whenever possible. If impossible to defend something, then briefly acknowledge it, downplay it, and attack anyone trying to make it an issue. I'm thinking of those who tried to get him to forcefully call out the leftists and non-white activists who were openly cheering Hamas and the worst single day slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust. We tried, but it got us nowhere.
This shows that the leftwing bubble our corporate oligarchy has formed continues to preach to itself in the mirror, despite a growing number of anyone under the sun questioning some of its agendas. As my son said, the problem Democrats have is that they will never be radical leftwing enough to appease the zealotry of the coastal leftwing fringes. In trying to do so, however, they are becoming far more leftwing radical than most Americans of any stripe will tolerate.
And what of the Greydanuses of the world, who appear willing to follow the left wherever it goes? Again, thralls of the leftwing bubble, but increasingly out of touch thralls who have sworn themselves to a movement a growing number of people are beginning to doubt, suspect and even fear.
Reminds me of this tablet mag article.
ReplyDeleteI wondered if the election results would be enough to snap Shea or Greydanus out of it. Not that they had to become MAGA or right-wing or anything, just that maybe they would pause a second and go, "wait, are we the baddies?"
Sadly, it seems not.
The problem with Greydanus is that he, unlike Shea who showed cracks in the reality mold ages ago, was always a good guy. Even when disagreeing with him, he was gracious, and sometimes humorous and could take the odd dig or jab with a smile. But something happened and he has become, well, one who consistently reminds all readers that he's the officially ordained formally trained student and teacher of theology in the room - and no humor at all, unless it's mocking those who challenge the Left. Also increasingly blocking and banning anyone who dares do more than grovel and apologetically suggest he might be slightly wrong, with much fear and trembling. When that sort of behavior emerges, there isn't a good way to reach him or imagine anything will stop his continued fealty to wherever the Left goes. As is evident by his support of what all but the most marginal leftwing extremist come close to advocating.
Delete(Tom New Poster)
ReplyDeleteI recall many English converts (especially those from the upper-classes) remarking that their families often criticized their conversions by claiming: "Well, now you'll go to services with the help", meaning working class (then largely Irish) Catholics. Perhaps Greydanus and his ilk got too comfy with the latte and chardonnay set in their social and literary circles and just don't like us beer and whiskey Catholics whose faith and politics are elsewhere.
Hard to say. Though it is interesting how many former 'celebrity Catholic converts from Protestantism' have gone beyond where all but the most extreme fringe liberal Protestant denominations have gone. Yet how many of them, back in the day, pointed to the collapse of devotion to the historical Faith among those denominations as evidence for the deep flaws within the Protestant tradition that is countered by the solid roots of the Catholic Faith? To be honest, at this point, most of them carry themselves just like Protestants would have back in the day who defended changing their denominations to keep up with the latest, hippest to the left of center.
DeleteI think it's hard to stay in the middle lane where actual virtue and prudence lies. Also, it seems harder for some Protestant converts to separate politics and self. They take it WAY too personally and not necessarily as a pragmatic decision. Or they are very good at justifying why they come to the conclusion they want to come to due to their "conscience." (A very Protestant take on things of course.) Obviously it's not just converts - cradle Catholic Dems have done this for years which is why that party is so off the deep end currently on life issues; (also see Americanism heresy proclaimed by Pope Leo XIII), but it's also not helpful when you have a Pope telling you that essentially you can vote for any platform/person you like as long as the reasons are not explicitly for the parts of the platform that contradict Church teaching.
DeleteI did see one Catholic convert proclaim there was "no pro-life" vote this time around because both parties were bad on IVF. Except... one party's platform included a massive push for abortions, free abortions at their convention, already prosecuted peaceful pro-lifers, and threatened to not include religious exemptions to healthcare workers for providing abortions. The other party is not particularly robust on pro-life issues, but won't actively go after you for your views while you evangelize either. I'm sorry, but that's not equal.
Even aside from the pro-life angle, I was weighing who'd I want at the helm for WWIII should international situations continue to deteriorate (I mean, I have draftable kids), and it was just no contest. I didn't have the luxury of sitting this election out, but I certainly don't see myself as that special regardless that somehow, I would be stooping beneath my dignity to choose between the two viable options I had either.
"The problem with liberals is not that they're ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't true."
ReplyDelete--- G.K. Chesterton
Arrogance, rather than ignorance. Lots of theology degrees hanging on their walls, constantly telling them how advanced they are, but little in the way of common sense or a basic grip on reality.
I heard some time ago that he has developed a habit of reminding people who disagree with him that he's the ordained clergy in the room, with formal theological training, a teacher of theology, and generally wielder of the flame of Anor. And he seems to prefer that monopoly. I mentioned to him that I, too, was formally educated in theology and biblical studies back in my day, but was quickly told that my credentials were doodoo to him. But then I've always know there is a wide gulf between being intelligent enough to get a degree, and being smart enough to use it well.
DeleteI'll go ahead and assume that "Deacon" Greydanus voted for Harris. What offends me is that he did so while her administration (Biden isn't running anything) funded and provided material support to Israel's mass murder campaign in the Gaza Strip. Thousands of women and children, many of them Christians, are dead because of the U.S.'s fealty to Netanyahu.
ReplyDeleteHamas suckup.
DeleteI suggest finding a way to assure Israel that those organizations like Hamas that are sworn to Israel's destruction, and are open about their plans for more October 7s, will not be tolerated and we will help Israel defeat them. Right now, telling Israel to stop without doing so is telling Israel to wait around until another thousand of its citizens are murdered. And shocking no one, people in Israel basically find that unacceptable.
DeleteBy the way, you should write a piece in response to "Deacon" Greydanus' retarded (there's no other word for it) analysis of the election results. I didn't vote for Trump, but the idea that a Christian, a pro-lifer, or a Christian pro-lifer can justify voting for the Harris-Walz ticket is beyond stupid. Harris tried to ruin David Daleiden's life, and Walz signed a bill legalizing infanticide in the state of Minnesota. Do I think that a vote for the Trump-Vance ticket is sinful, too? Yes. That's why I didn't vote for him.
ReplyDeleteTo no one's surprise, Greydanus' piece resorts to the brand of self-directed white guilt he's famous for. He also cites David French, who probably blew up a civilian or two when he was advising U.S. drone campaigns, as some sort of Christian authority. What a frivolous man.
https://greydanus.substack.com/p/so-what-do-we-do-now
I hasten to add that, should you decide to write such a piece, you should take care to mention Greydanus' idiotic decision to cite John Bolton as a meaningful Trump critic. That bit is almost as compelling as the Harris campaign's decision to tout the Cheneys' support.
DeleteAgain, he pretty much defends the perspective that the Left is always the good guys, the Right always the bad, and he now frames almost all of his arguments through that template. Reacting with increasing intolerance and even hostility to those who challenge this.
DeleteNot much we can do with Greydanus except point out where he misleads people, and also pray for him. After reading your post, I checked out Greydanus' piece about not voting for Trump, and in that piece he despicably states: "I have argued that it is always morally permissible (not always morally necessary, but always morally permissible) to vote for the viable candidate (that is, the candidate with a chance of winning) that you consider least objectionable."
ReplyDeleteEspecially given his status as a deacon, he has an obligation to state Catholic teaching clearly instead of giving the impression that what he sets forth coincides with Catholic teaching on voting for either of 2 flawed candidates, which it clearly isn't, and he should be ashamed of himself, but pride gets in the way as his wokeness is more important to him than Catholic truth.
Per Catholic teaching regarding flawed candidates as the only viable ones, the moral obligation is to vote for that candidate determined as objectively as possible to be the lesser of the two evils in what he or she proposes and likely to do, and also to prevent the greater evil person from being able to do more damage and evil if elected. It is NOT SIMPLY VOTING FOR ONE SUBJECTIVELY CONSIDERED TO BE LEAST OBJECTIONABLE as Greydanus wrongly declares, because "least objectionable" does not contain the moral requirements necessary. One can be determined to be "least objectionable" because of how one looks compared to the other, and how one speaks compared to the other, and so on and so on, so "least objectionable" is not a legitimate standard, yet Greydanus promotes such pure rubbish and misleads people in the process who may not know better and unwisely trust this most untrustworthy propagandist. While I pray for him, the following conclusion about him is also the reality that he continues to demonstrate over and over and over again: He's just a pathetic jerk, and he does not deserve to be a deacon.
I am of the view that the revival of the diaconate, at a time when the Church was already over-run with useless credentialed busybodies, was a mistake. There are good deacons, but as a whole they appear to have little idea of the proper role of deacons, which is to care for the material needs of their own congregations. They seem unable or unwilling to stay in their lanes. ----- G. Poulin
DeleteHe's that way with a growing number of subjects. When I mentioned that the Democrats provided the loudest voices against desegregation and ending Jim Crow era laws, he fired back that I was wrong, Jim Crow laws predated the Democratic Party, so somehow that couldn't be true. He also embraces things like 'slavery was everywhere, but nowhere as terrible as the US (which is his preferred framework for anything dealing with the West's sins)', which anyone with a day of studies in history knows to be bunk. It shouldn't surprise us, then, that he frames Church teaching around these narratives that he clings to in the same way, whether accurate or not.
DeleteTo me this reads as: "Here is the rational way to read this law as opposed to the 'extreme' way the 'crazies' are interpreting it, and I know because, you know, I'm part of reasonable and polite society."
ReplyDeleteOh, he has no problem with the whole 'why do you insist on being a racist when you can be a leftist instead.' In fact, he finally blocked me again when I called him out on his mendacity after a post saying he expected, and provided, the highest standards of civil discourse on his blog. This was when he stood by and let his leftwing readers like Weiss and Shea rip into some young girl who questioned the latest leftwing talking point as the fascist, racist idiot that she was because she dared not be a leftist. I told him that 'good cop/bad cop' approach to principles doesn't do a deacon any good, and perhaps he should tell his cadre of Grover Dills to knock it off if he is serious about such civil, Christian discourse. So blocked again.
Delete