Saturday, February 10, 2018

There’s more to Deacon Steven D. Greydanus than meets the eye

Is that a double ‘devil horns’ or a double ‘I love you’?  
And why is a deacon posing like he’s a gangster rapper?

Recently, Deacon Steven D. Greydanus, a movie reviewer for Reel Faith (get it?) and creator of Decent Film Guide, writer for Christianity Today, Catholic World Report, and the National Catholic Register gave a glowing sixty second review of Call Me By Your Name, a sodomite film about the homosexual relations between a teenager and adult male.  Keep in mind that Deacon Greydanus is happily married with seven children.  Here is his review below:

For two very good critiques of this review please see:

Dear reader after watching that film review, would you consider it an endorsement or not?  Where is the condemnation of the sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance?  The warning to stay away from it?

Wow!  In his I didn’t endorse the movie post, he endorses Moonlight, another film about homosexuality with the added bonus of drugs!  This got us wondering if there was more to Deacon Greydanus.  The following information is by no means exhaustive and was found by cursorily looking at Deacon Greydanus’s social media.  The first movie review we came across is below and after watching him endorse this piece of Talmudic garbage we decided not to watch any more reviews.

Deacon Greydanus gives a kabbalistic and Enochian 
film, Noah, a B+ and states it “a rare gift.”

So onto Deacon Greydanus’s social media...

(click images to enlarge)

Mocking the office of deacon which he holds.

Deacon Steven and good buddy Mark Shea mocking the 
Novus Ordo religion of which they both belong to.

 More good fun by blaspheming Our Lord Jesus the Christ.

‘Humble’ just like Francis.

Does pro-life Deacon Steven not understand the connection 
between birth control abortion homosexuality — pornography?

This isn’t humor, it’s plain sick and frankly disturbing.

Is he an occultist too?

 Don’t know if we can take any more of the deacon’s ‘humor’.

Deacon Greydanus looks to be in the good graces of his cardinal bishop Tobin.

It shouldn’t be any wonder where the deacon gets his attitude, Cardinal Tobin wrote a glowing endorsement of Fr. James Martin’s book, Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity.

As Fr. Ray Blake recently asked on his blog concerning Francis and homosexuality, Dare We Join the Dots?

Is the deacon an alchemist — Solve et coagula? Sex magick?

The reason Deacon Greydanus does his movie reviews 
and posts garbage to his social media.

Not to worry, the Deacon’s movie review show, Reel Faith, has a ringing endorsement from this traditional looking nun.

Film reviews with faith in the movie reel and not with God!


  1. Mother Dolores Hart is former actress Dolores Hart. Roncalli was instrumental in her vocation:

  2. I spent 20 years away from the Church. Came back and now is just a mouthpiece for SJWs and identity politics. I need to find another faith.

    1. Oh Lawrence, you found the one true faith, but you will have to carry your cross in it like the rest of us. Please don't run off to some other place, trying to find something more palatable, lies are palatable, and you will be discarding Truth for fables. This is the Church Christ founded, and it contains Truth and best of all, the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, in the Holy Eucharist. You will get a cracker and wine in other faiths.
      Find a Latin Rite Mass and plant yourself there. Buy a 1962 or earlier Roman Missal and learn the Mass, you can do it. Every week you can go and stand at Calvary and the Resurrection.
      The Church is suffering, as Christ suffered, don't abandon Her now. Pick up your cross and get going.

    2. Find a traditional Catholic chapel outside the Novus Ordo structure.
      They (traditional chapels) have valid priests and also obey the 1945 missal including the pre-1950 Holy Week.

  3. I’m totally at a loss for words. This man (before he was a Deacon) was the one who prepared my eldest son for confirmation. I would never of expected to see this, especially from a man like him. What a shame, he used to be a true defender of the faith

  4. For anyone with eyes to see, his inclination is obvious. I am unsettled by his devil horns salute (if people don't realize, when people hold their hands in the sign language position of "love", it is also called the "devil horns" indicating Satan, and in the top picture he's in a gangsta pose with the devil horns obvious, though I'm positive he would deny it. This gesture is one "Father" Martin also used on a late night tv show. Clearly this man is very much about his own image, one look at him demonstrates that, and he talks about himself a lot, another sign of narcissism, a hallmark trait of LGBT obsession.
    No church filled with men like this can be one that serves Christ, it's impossible.

  5. Well, he is a movie reviewer. He goes to movies, which is a dangerous job in itself. So naturally he is going to appreciate a film that is very well done from a technical standpoint and for that matter a film that does a good job of depicting a very human (albeit sinful ) reality. On another blog I condemned him for this review but when I see some of the comments, I am having second thoughts. Obviously it is a morally bad movie, about one of the deadliest of the seven deadly sins, and obviously, too, the review was a mistake and can easily be seen as a plug, but I think his enthusiasm is not for the sin it depicts, but for the excellence of the depiction.

    In my other blog comment, I deplored that this enthusiastic review may lead people to the movie and to the "lifestyle" and so to eternal condemnation. I still think so, but from what he says later (above), that clearly was not his intention. In other words, the review video does not due justice to his full thought, for he says, "The film as a whole is not one that I endorse or support in any way." Of course, it would have been better if he had said that in the video. It was a mistake not to, obviously, but there are very few people who have not made egregious mistakes in their careers. His happens to be a particularly dangerous career, both from the standpoint of having to review dangerous movie and that of having to publish his opinion about them. However, it is really disturbing that for a one/off review some people feel we have enough information both to diagnose both his sexual orientation and his moral status!! This also is a sin and reprehensible, is it not? In short, his review was a big mistake, but one for which we should cut him some slack. Since I do not go to movies, I ordinarily don't read movie reviews, but for people who do go to movies, it is very useful to have someone reviewing them for us from a Catholic standpoint, is it not?. Presumably he has been doing that for us in commendable fashion up till now. For one catastrophic review we should cast him out of respectable company? No, he has explained himself satisfactorily above.

    1. We wonder if you read the post or not? Or perhaps if you did read it didn't understand it. It's more than one review. We provided another example with his review of Noah, which was even worse with an outright endorsement of this blasphemous Talmudic, Enochian, Kabbalistic piece of trash. Then there is his blasphemy of Our Lord, mocking of the office of deacon, occult posts, etc... on his social media. Best case that's many lapses of judgement. Worse case.....

    2. Here’s a fictional conversation.
      Catholic Moviegoer: Should I go see the movie “XYZ”?
      Catholic Movie Reviewer: No you should not.
      End of conversation!!!!

  6. I remember Steven Graydanus defending the Harry Potter movies some years ago as being spiritually harmless for the most part. After that, I decided his wisdom may be lacking in subsequent movie reviews. As for CMBYN movie, should Catholic Deacons even watch a movie that is obviously sinful in it's theme? I would say no. Skip the movies made to ensnare the viewer with the devil's temptations to find anything good in his entertainment.

  7. Well, evidently you saw Noah or know more about it than I do, or, more probably have read a hostile reviewer. I have not, but on the face of it, I don't see the problem with the review. Absolutely any depiction of a biblical story is going to be subject to hyper-criticism. I wonder if any such film has ever been lacking condemnation from some Christian viewpoint, not excluding "The Passion,"' Ben-Hur" and "The Ten Commandments." Biblical scholars as a whole are antagonistic to such movies and say they almost never get the story right. Probably not, but then again if producers made movies for biblical purists, they would go out of business quickly. "Noah" and any such biblical movie can only ever be an interpretation, but even if they only get people to thinking about divine revelation and whether the movie corresponds to it or not, that is a good thing, no? Of course, we should draw the line at blasphemy, and you do use that word, but with what justification, I do not know. The review itself is squeaky clean far as I can see.

    Yes, you've assembled quite a portfolio of stuff, and I will admit to not being able to understand several of the items at all, or how they support your argument that Greydanus is a bad character, or what the worse case might be.

    In short,I see no reason why Greydanus should be drummed out of his reputation as a Catholic in good standing. He may be edgy, provocative, irritating as such creative people often are to those of us whose minds run on more prosaic tracks, but not yet is he anything like a public sinner deserving of public condemnation.

  8. I said that I did not understand the items in your portfolio of evidence against Greydanus, but taking them one by one I should make the attempt, since I am the promoter of his cause vs. you as the devil's advocate :)

    So, after the Noah review we have the Spider-deacon pic and comment. This is clearly a pan of the stupid spider dalmatic, and not the diaconate. Spider-man is a hero who can do amazing things, but "spider deacon" is just a deacon, and cannot do the amazing things a priest can do. Besides being a pan of the dalmatic, Greydanus the deacon clearly shows his respect for the powers of the priesthood. How is this bad? If anything it is evidence of humility.

  9. Next we come to the chimpanzee altar servers. I don't understand the context for this photo or how it advances your argument. Is it sacrilegious in some way? But altar servers are not consecrated persons, nor are they at the altar. The worst than can be said of it is that it is in bad taste, and depending on the context perhaps hilarious. There is certainly nothing evil about it, unless one wants to be found in the company of those who see evil in the crotch of a tree.

  10. Then we come to the dinosaur pic, which you find blasphemous. Why? Again, what is the context? There is a well-known picture of our Lord kicking a soccer ball. Is that also blasphemous?

    Skipped was the pic of Deacon Greydanus vested and with fingers forming some sort of sign. What is the context of this photo, and what does the sign mean? Both factors are unknown, but nevertheless are part of the portfolio of Greydanus's bad stuff. This is what I mean about not understanding. To me it all adds up to a handful of nothing.

  11. Then there is the photo labeled "Humble just like Francis" presented as more evidence of moral turpitude. This is a pic of Greydanus with two well-known friends, and labeled by his WIFE as " A whole Lot of Awesomeness in my Kitchen." His wife finds him and friends awesome. We should all be so blessed, but if on the other hand a bad interpretation can be placed on it, surely it belongs in the portfolio. Are you kidding me?

  12. The most troubling post is that of the blood spattered room with a still shot of a bare buttocks on the tv with Steve's comment of "Lunch?"

    What the heck?? What the heck?? What the heck??

    Trying to decipher that cryptic post/comment is like trying to uncode one of the Podesta brother's Wikileaked emails.

  13. The "Lunch" one is a meme that was popular for a couple of days. The idea is that your text is an absurd non-sequitur to the picture. So if you had just texted someone that you "just got a haircut" it's funny because obviously a haircut would not involve (one would hope) a scene like that.

    Please listen to Lee Gilbert and stop attacking this poor guy for things he didn't do.

    1. But he did do it. If you ever laughed at a room dripping blood w/"lunch," you are out of your mind. Just as anyone would defend a Catholic deacon who wouldn't emphasize the mortal sin engendered in the making of such a film let alone in attending it. He might as well review pornography for "catholics." If you'd ever taken the Pledge of Decency on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception--maybe you would be able to tell good from evil and right from wrong.

      These pervert deacons will be the first married priests.

      Surprised they didn't make this father of seven a deacon (@30 w/Cardinal McCarrick)

      What's a shame and a scandal is that catholics are being fed sodomite propaganda under the guise of "Catholic" media reviews and opinions.

      "This is important, because Catholics have historically done a poor job loving our neighbors who are same-sex attracted and/or self-identify as gay. (For the purposes of this discussion, by “gay” I simply mean those who identify as gay.)

      Unjust hostility toward the same-sex attracted, and fear of being associated or identified with them, are real phenomena with deep roots in human nature and social structures. Tragically, Catholics have not resisted these tendencies as we should have; on the contrary, we have too often embraced and reinforced them. (I haven’t read Elizabeth’s combox, but I suspect some of the comments she has received provide confirmation of this sad truth — and that some comments in my combox will do the same.)

      This is a shame and a scandal, and has greatly harmed the cause of the Gospel. We need to do better. The need to make amends is great."

      The needs to make amends is great? Greydanus has a great need to make amends (w/all his priest, bishop & cardinal abusers) to those groomed to play down the crime of pedophilia and sodomy and those led into mortal sin because of him recommending a movie that glamorizes evil (homo & heterosexual). Is he helping the cause of the Gospel w/this review??! Whose soul is greydanus caring for? What was the aim of this movie review?

      What about those who will feel like committing suicide after being drugged w/alcohol (like Peter Pan w/Fairy dust) and raped by someone the teen had looked up to (like the priest or deacon?) and their souls eternally lost?

      Did you watch this video? Did you listen to the victim? I felt like committing suicide:

      See America magazine shilling like greydanus for pedophiles and sodomites poo-poo the risk of suicide:

      Greydanus should be attacked for grooming Catholics to laugh about sodomy and pedophilia (wouldn't be surprised if you already think it's no big deal)! It is a scandal and a misuse of the gospel if ever there was one!

    2. Thank you for your comment Anonymous.

  14. You and your readers may want to know that Greydanus has a print review of this film at today's Catholic World Report. In terms of protecting his own reputation and alerting his viewership to the problems with this movie, he surely would have done better to have had these thoughts in his one minute forty-six second video review.

    My impression is that he made the video shortly after watching the movie and was carried away by its production values without considering the impression his remarks would have and the meaning that could be imposed on them. Obviously this was a huge mistake.

    That said, in view of his more complete thought, do not both he and his work deserve a second look and more charitable treatment than the traditional blogsphere has accorded him thus far?

    1. Yes, we saw Greydanus’ piece. It's damage control.

      No, his work really doesn’t deserve a second look.

      If we are to do another piece on Greydanus, it'll consist of more of his social media postings plus his endorsements of movies such as Silence and Moonlight.

  15. Well, hereisjorgebergoglio, if that's your position, so be it. One day, when someone decides that they don't like you and decides to "connect the dots" viz. your social media and other online activities, perhaps you'll change your tune. Multiple anti-Jewish posts, including one about the JFK assassination...what would your employer think if someone were to "connect the dots" with what you've written on this blog? Assuming (and it's a big assumption) you're NOT an anti-Semite or conspiracy theory nut, wouldn't it be grossly unfair if someone used your posts to "connect the dots" to cost you your job? And how much worse would it feel if it were a fellow Catholic?