Featured Post

Blog Status Update 5pm 9/17/17

Followers of this blog might be aware of recent events that led to me shutting down The Hirsch Files for a week . Well, it seems that my pla...

Friday, February 21, 2014

Sedevacantism 8: The Disappearance of Christian Charity

So, I was banned for a day from Suscipe Domine today, and predictably so.

I have been known to bring up uncharitable behavior from sedes before—and, of course, been labelled as thin-skinned for doing so.

In any event, during a thread where we were discussing the latest Vortex video attacking pope-deniers, our endearing and most Christian friend Larry decided to chime in with a clever little jab (In reply #17).

An exchange ensued, one of many that happens on these forums.  But somehow, this one seemed to get moderator attention.


Ultimately, and much to the delight of all sedevacantists who hate Laramie Hirsch and those who speak up for the authority of the pope, I was banned for a day.

"Hooray! We got LH banned today!"
Kaesekopf then told me to not "mock administrator warnings" and to "post constructively," though I hardly see how Larry's initial jab at me (in Reply #17) was constructive at all. In fact, the forum is filled with tons of nonconstructive chatter that seems to be tolerated.

I suppose I'm held to a higher standard.

Shortly after that, the poster named Recovering NOer (who secretly loves me, I believe) was allowed to mock your beloved Hirsch Files, making quips about my "typical histrionic evasion" on this blog.*

And yet, not a word from Kaesekopf when Recovering NOer (RN) is "kicking me while I'm down," so to speak. I suppose Kaesekopf finds RN's contribution to be constructive.

- - - - -

So, that happened today, and it gives me an opportunity to refocus some attention on this blog post that I've had sitting around for a while.

But before I continue, I wish to reiterate something I've said on Suscipe Domine before:

I get along with people here (on Suscipe Domine). Of course, I have strong feelings about sedevacantism [...] I am hopeful that those who disagree with me can simply tell me: "I disagree with you." Rather than saying something horrible, nasty, and un-Catholic.

I truly meant and mean that. I do my best to keep my disagreement with sedevacantism focused on the idea of sedevacantism, and not individuals. I try not to malign neither any particular sedevacantists, nor any particular sedevacantist-sympathizers.

But it seems that sedevacantists in these circles are unable to maintain the same standard.

I have been accused of being "woefully ignorant, offering ridiculous themes." My critical opinion of sedevacantism has been called Hirschavacantism. My writing has been called liberal ignorance and emotion, and I've been told that I make asinine comparisons, that I make uneducated remarks, that I whine like a girl, that I write drivel, and that I am thin-skinned. I am accused of being happy to continue calumniating good Catholics. One of my devotees, Roland Deschain, tells me that I write emotionally-charged pablum, that I am a coward who throws a sucker punch, and then runs when taken to task, and he says that it doesn't take a sedevacantist to see the feminine qualities of my sissy hit-and-run sucker punches. He tells me that I emote, slander and label.

And yet…taking a look at all of this, can a person not sincerely question who truly is emoting, slandering, and labeling?

I keep my thoughts on sedevacantism focused on the idea of sedevacantism. These "good Catholics" seem rather focused on me.

Charles Coulombe, one of the most cheerful Catholics I know of, laments the lack of charity on the internet:

Perhaps it's because I'm 53. Perhaps it's because I am recovering from a major bereavement. Perhaps it's because I see no political solutions for the problems facing America and the West. Perhaps it's because I weary of endless wrangling on the internet - on the ad hominems against and defriendings of folk whose major sin is to disagree with one. But more and ever more, the altar rail, the confessional, and the rosary and other devotions seem like the only realities in my day. The jumping up and down over questions of politics, science, and so on that seem to engross my friends to the point of incivility leave me cold, regardless of whether or not I agree on a given point. To silence rather than to answer one's opponents seems the order of the day. This would not be so bad, perhaps, save for the temptation to place my own opinion on par with revealed dogma, and to simply dismiss those who might disagree with me.

"To silence rather than to answer one's opponents seems the order of the day." Indeed. What else could be behind my online opponents who want to ban me from forums?

When I first read Coulombe's words, Fr. Cekada came immediately to mind. That night, I stumbled across one of Cekada's recent articles, titled: Papa Gaga's "Pastoral" Code. It was an entertaining read, but right off the bat, in the title we see Cekada referring to the pope in an insulting fashion—assigning him the name of a very immoral apostate Catholic, the musician Lady Gaga.

Later on that night, after reading Coulombe and Cekada's article, I came across this forum post about Michael Voris (who, at the time, had not even spoken out against pope-deniers):

Now instead of exposing lies, Voris is a whore to a paycheck. he will put himself in check to keep the Libby NOMer money pouring in so he keep going on speaking cruises and travel all over Europe. He will pick and choose who he attacks- but his days of exposing error are over when it comes to Pope Francis, Heretic. He just won't risk the gravy boat.

What hate. What contempt. "By their fruits, you shall know them." Indeed. Want to know why the SSPX and different sedevacantist groups will continue to fracture in the future? Just observe their immaturity.

The sedes and those who sympathize with them that I have been encountering have been proving themselves to truly be the ones emoting, slandering, and labeling. They have been proving to be the nasty ones, here. It is their camp who has the snide remarks and uncharitable quips. And just as they lack the ability to stay loyal to the Church and weather this storm, they also lack the ability to maintain self control and refrain from personal attacks.

As far as I can tell, I am the only one in these circles who is so vocally supporting the authority of the pope against this growing tide of people falling into schism. Even though this pope has been a disaster for our Church's image, I still respect the office and his authority to affirm infallible truths. Even though this pope appears to be spouting informal heretical statements, courting Cuban-styled Marxists, and winking and nodding to liberal godless media—in spite of my disdain for his conduct, I still respect his office.

So excuse me if I jab back at Larry. Excuse me if I hit back from time to time.

*As for Roland Deschain's request for me to address his statement from December, I actually started on a response. It was even going to be a new post to this blog--an honorary post with his name in it, no less:

Should I continue writing on this? Nah.
However, when I review the nasty words Deschain has to share for yours truly, or perhaps even his rude online manner, I just tend to forget about ever responding to him at all, since such a response would only be met with further derision and dismissal.


  1. Laramie,
    I understand your frustration, but I think that charity itself is being eliminated from this world since the meaning keeps changing. The phrase, "things are bad all over" comes to mind. People are so ticked off about the situation in the Church and they have been ignored so long that they feel the need to scream to be heard. It also seems that once a position has been declared, after much exploration and experience, no one is going to change them, so they yell louder when poked about it. You seem to push those buttons, whether intentional or not.

    So these people are your cross. Carry it with diplomacy and dignity. I'm not saying to change your positions, just be careful in how you express them. You set the example for politeness and decorum. It's a pain, I know, but one that will pay off in the end. The whole world is pissed off and everyone wants their views to count for something. We just have to set feelings aside and one up them on how it's done. Stay above the fray and you will be able to answer to God with a clear conscience.

  2. "You seem to push those buttons, whether intentional or not."

    I do not know how else to tell these people what I want to say to them without them perceiving me to be abrasive.

    I mean, instead of "Sedevacantism is schismatic," what else should I say?

    "Sedevacantism could be...er...just might be...well, disagreeable to, you know, how you are supposed to regard Church hierarchy. Okay?"

    I'm planning to post a sort of explanation for my motives and conduct on the Suscipe Domine forum. In it, I am being as sincere as I can about where I am coming from. But ultimately, I suppose folks are upset because I'm challenging their path.

    I acknowledge that these people's views count for something. But throwing out fealty is the wrong choice.

    I thank you for your patient explanation and suggestion. I'm really hoping I can wrap up all this talk about sedevacantism soon, and that there won't be any kind of sede-news event or provocation from someone else. Time can only tell.