To the piece by Mike Lewis explaining his swing to the left of center. Apparently Lewis's piece is getting quite a bit of attention.
The response is copied from his Facebook page below. Ironically, I had blocked the good deacon some time ago because I grew tired of his playing fast and loose with honest discourse. I hated to see him slip into the same pit I've seen far too many, especially to the left of center, slip. That 'words speak louder than actions' trick that defines so much dialogue with those who tack progressive gets under my skin color.
Nonetheless, I thought better of it. I'm not a fan of blocking or banning people. Especially fellow believers. It makes me think of retreating into a room in the church basement and locking the door to keep 'those other believers' out of our hipster church club. I concede it must happen sometimes. But it should be done like it was in the olden days of the Internet - rarely and only because of the worst cases (threats, calumny, personal attacks without stopping after multiple warnings). So I unblocked him, only to have him block me. That's because I finally called him out on his 'good cop/bad cop' tendency of threatening to block people who even challenge a leftwing mantra, saying he only wants the best behavior on his pages, while standing back and letting people like Shea and Rebecca Weiss and other leftwing readers rip into anyone challenging their leftwing sympathies with endless name calling, accusations and personal attacks. So that was the end of me.
Nonetheless, there are others I know and follow who haven't been banned, and other sources that still follow him. So from those sources this came to me, which I thought was every bit as telling as Mr. Lewis's piece (that's why no link, BTW). What think you? Do you notice what I notice in his reasoning?
Apparently someone challenged the 'only those MAGA types are the real problem' template. Deacon Greydanus's response is to that comment. First the comment:
All of this irritates me to no end. Fine, people on the right are too factional. So are people on the left. Every single Catholic group my wife and I ever been involved in (including breastfeeding groups, homeschooling groups, and pro-life groups) fall into the same trap of constantly pointing at someone else and saying “They’re factional!” The devil knows its a perfect trap: Factionalism is really bad, and to constantly complain about factionalism only deepens factionalism. It would be much better, I think, to spend time promoting the good that Jesus Christ offers the world and how that instantiates itself in various proposals. We never get to do that because we always say, “First of all, look what a jerk the other guy is. Now let me tell you about Jesus.
And his response:
I have something to say about this. I don’t think your response is adequate. I don’t think you’re entirely reckoning with what this discussion is really about.
Here’s what I think you may be missing: People like Mike and me (along with many people in this thread, as you can see for yourself) are not just angry or upset about “factionalism,” or people being “jerks.” We are wounded souls processing trauma and grief over the loss of one-time heroes and friends whom we watched in dismay and disbelief as they turned against us, and against, so it seems to us, the heart of the faith we thought we shared with them, in the process of building a militant, powerful Catholic subculture organized around entrenched resistance to the pope (if not to Vatican II), a string of culture-war shibboleths (e.g., knee-jerk repudiation of anything associated with “wokeness”; deep hostility regarding any attempt to treat people who identify as LGBTQ with respect and welcome), unfettered enthusiasm for the hardest possible line on immigration, and, ultimately, uncritical, quasi-religious support of Trump/MAGA.
We have heard these things said from pulpits, from episcopal offices, and in Catholic media spaces. We have been told—by people we respected and cared about, whose words we used to hang on—that we are not really Catholic if we see things differently.
I’m not saying progressive, dissenting Catholics can’t be factionalistic. I’m saying we who don’t (or, in some cases, who once didn’t) dissent from the Church never expected progressive dissenters, or any dissenters, to model Christian unity and integrity. We did expect that of our heroes and friends. Their betrayal—compounded by their accusation that *we* are the traitors—is an open wound from which we continue to suffer.
Cardinal Burke was one of my great heroes, a rock star of fidelity, erudition, and sober judgment in my eyes. To see him brought low by so absurd a rightwing canard as Covid vaccine microchip conspiracy theories was bad enough. Worse was his violence to basic canon law principles—Cardinal Burke, doing violence to canon law!—by redefining “apostasy” to include Catholics like President Biden whom he considers to have “publicly and obstinately violated the moral law,” and his quite literally scandalous “just asking questions” engagement with sedevacantist speculation about Pope Francis being invalidly elected (in discussion with Patrick Coffin, who has repeatedly platformed the likes of E. Michael Jones, among other gross things).
That’s just one example—and I don’t even know Cardinal Burke. I’ve been insulted and attacked in every way imaginable by people I once called friends. I am a fallen and flawed human being who has made many mistakes, and not every ugly word flung my way has been undeserved or incomprehensible. But some of them are simply because I believe God is doing good things in the Church through Pope Francis. Because I believe my Black neighbors and brothers in Christ when they say racism is still a significant problem. Because I believe in treating people who identify as queer first as human beings created in God’s image. Because I believe that immigrants who have lived here for decades have rights that must be respected.
Cardinal Ratzinger, shortly before his election to the chair of Peter, talked about the danger posed by those who talk about God but live contrary to him, and how this opens the door to unbelief. He talked about the great need for people who, by the enlightened faith they live, “make God credible” in the world. Our crisis, our wound, is that the very people who once made God credible for us have now turned out to be people who talk about God but live contrary to him. This has led many to doubt, to struggle with unbelief, to fall away from the Catholic communion, or to lose their faith altogether. This is not about mere factionalism. This is about making God’s love visible in the world, or distorting it in the pursuit, ultimately, of political power.
Yeah I noticed Shae is covering this thing too.
ReplyDeletea string of culture-war shibboleths (e.g., knee-jerk repudiation of anything associated with “wokeness”; deep hostility regarding any attempt to treat people who identify as LGBTQ with respect and welcome), unfettered enthusiasm for the hardest possible line on immigration, and, ultimately, uncritical, quasi-religious support of Trump/MAGA
As usual the good deacon projects like a movie theater, but quite frankly I am getting sick of these people and this line. I don't want to hear how anti-Christ any on the right are when people like Mark and Steve ignore or provide cover for the trafficking of children on the border. It's starting to make one wonder why the Catholic church (or its charities in some cases) seem to keep ending up providing cover for child exploitation.
They can work on removing the forests from their own eyes before they bother anyone else about the dust mote in the other's eye.
Yes, the border trafficking situation has been beyond egregious, especially when it has been facilitated in part by "Catholic" charities.
DeleteExactly Bernadette. And I've heard from more than one person, "well I don't support that either, but this is not the way to--" at which point my reply nowadays is that they had their chance. They had long enough to try and fix the situation to do something about it and they didn't. So now "daddy's home" and it's getting done. Any complaints about how it's being done are null and void because they had their chance and failed.
DeleteIt seems to have been picked up several fronts. Yes, it's been sad watching him slip into the mendacity and hypocrisy that defines so much modern, especially progressive, discourse.
DeleteYou do touch on one of the great evils of our age (and that's a tall mountain to climb). As my sons noticed a couple years ago, the only time the national press kicks into high gear and goes 24/7 headline outrage over the modern slave trade is when someone brings it up, and then usually to attack or beat down the ones bringing it up. They pull out the stops, trot out victims of modern slavery to explain why trying to shed light on modern slavery is dangerous and will hurt people, and then when everything dies down the story is dropped until next time someone gets shellacked for bringing attention to it. The irony is that the Left's perpetual and merciless judging and condemning of the US's past is allowing it to make the country into everything it condemned the US for being in the first place.
First of all, I find it offensive, the implication that many of us have somehow abandoned orthodoxy while the left-leaners have somehow remained steadfast in it simply because we have legit concerns about this Pope. Hello...who is making the idol of what here? And, quite frankly, the other implication is that if we don't support left-leaning views on "immigration" or "racism" we have somehow abandoned the gospel. Why do they get to equate the gospel with certain political views while they accuse their counterparts of that very thing? And why are they assuming that people who might speak out about the "queer" agenda aren't actually treating "queer" people as human beings first?? These are all astounding assumptions lacking in goodwill towards their fellow believers.
ReplyDeleteAnd lastly, how are the good Deacon and guys like Mike Lewis so in the know that they can accuse Cardinal Burke of changing the definition of "apostosy" or the Dubia asking for clarification as "sinister"???
(Per Lewis: Looking back, we can now see the point of no return was in 2016. It was on April 8 of that year that Pope Francis released Amoris Laetitia, his apostolic exhortation on love in the family. A few months later, the so-called dubia—submitted by four cardinals challenging the document’s orthodoxy—was released to the public. Unlike other theological debates, the kind the Church has always weathered, the dubia sparked something darker, more corrosive, more sinister.)
Under "Catholic" Joe Biden, pro-life people were prosecuted, and abortionists were honored with Medals of Freedom. How was that not scandalous? And when faced with two candidates where one says: "I will do all I can to promote abortion and work to erase conscience clauses and prosecute those who oppose this platform..." and the other says, "I may not advance any pro-life legislation, but I won't actively work against it or prosecute those working for the pro-life cause..."
Practically speaking, these were our choices, and a pragmatic decision had to be made.
One of the most powerful weapons in the Left's arsenal for years has been to simply assume the Left and the scientific God truth are one and the same, and only idiot Nazis disagree. So now let's find out if you're an idiot, a Nazi, or both. It seems stupid, but it's devastatingly effective, and why so many conservatives buckle and concede miles of ground before entering a debate. You know, they begin by assuring everyone they aren't sexists or racists or hate gay people. They will accept certain premises like the history of the US as embodying racism and genocide. They will even begin with variations of the famous 'I'm a kindly conservative, or not racist one' (implying that of course most conservatives are those things).
DeleteIt's not that effective. Please recall what Eleanor Roosevelt had to say. "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent". Stop consenting and proceed with your points.
DeleteBecause I believe my Black neighbors and brothers in Christ when they say racism is still a significant problem. Because I believe in treating people who identify as queer first as human beings created in God’s image. Because I believe that immigrants who have lived here for decades have rights that must be respected.
ReplyDelete==
I'm older than Greydanus. I have to scout my memory to recall a single occasion when a 'black neighbor' offered me his views on social questions. I had a black workmate who told me in a rather rambling way she thought George Bush the Elder was a poseur; that was around about 1992. (Lots of problems are 'significant'; doesn't mean they're all that important in relation to other problems). I'd also have to scour my memory to recall an occasion when a homosexual of my acquaintance was treated as a poltergeist or a space alien. The closest I can come is a kid who lived on the next block down from us who was razzed mercilessly on the school bus because he was just this side of a cross dresser. He's also older than Greydanus (and currently employed as a stage actor in Los Angeles), so this was not terribly recent. He'll have to artfully redefine 'decades' to defend the presence of the 12 million people the Klain-Dunn Puppetmaster cabal invited over the border.
Oddly enough, in my ministry days I ran into not a few African Americans, mostly pastors, who were very much of that mentality. One so far as suggesting by being white everything we were about to preach on was tainted by our inherent racism (when the idea that only whites could be racist, and therefore assuming all whites were somehow impacted by racism was taking off). Not all were like that of course. But probably the most I ever met I met in those days and circles. In normal relations, including workplace, that hasn't been the case and it has been more like your experience.
Delete