In any case, the latest news in Laramie Hirsch Land is that I've been banned once again, this time for three days. In attempting to return to the forum today, I found the message: "Sorry LaramieHirsch, you are banned from using this forum! 3 day ban for posting with an agenda, not posting in good faith, instigating the forum."
|"Got him again!"|
Things seem to work in a pattern there, I think.
Last time, during "Witchhunt Wednesday" (an August 20th post on SD where I recommended a different kind of perspective for a new SD policy) I was first told that I was not invited to that thread to contribute to the conversation, and tmw89 decided to find fault in the words I chose to use--though he clarified to me at the same time that he was actually talking over my head and not addressing me directly at all.
My fault? I was calling Father Cekada names.
I thought it was a trivial matter, since I've seen many members of SD call other clergy names before, including even the Pope. But, in their eagerness to find fault in whatever I say, they hounded the hell out of me until the thread was finally locked by page six, but not before Sbyvl36 boasted that witch hunting is fun and recommended I get banned.
In any event, being the mature and concerned man that I am, I've looked into the matter deeply. I even told the moderators that this accusation concerned me, and that I would look into it.
1. The Catechism of St. Pius X states that "It is a very grave sin, because the scorn and insults cast on Priests fall upon Jesus Christ Himself, who said to His Apostles: He who despises you, despises Me."
2. Furthermore, a few priests I consulted about the matter told me I was wrong, and that Fr. Cekada should not be insulted in such a way, because he holds the sacred title of a priest.
3. I recalled being taught before I became Catholic that once a man is made a priest, he is a priest forever. Even when the priest dies, he remains a priest in the next life. That man will be a priest forever in Heaven, or he will be a priest forever in Hell. Yet, he will always be a priest. This is much more binding than if you are married, since vows are dissolved when death separates spouses.
After a few weeks, I've decided to apologize today on Suscipe Domine. I'll do it again here:
I apologize to Father Cekada for calling him names and disrespecting him as I have. I was wrong, and I regret what I said.
But since I am not boring, since I am an occasional conversationalist, and since I wanted to call to mind some interesting facts about priests, I decided to remind the SD community that even though Martin Luther and Arius are heretics, these men are also--still to this day--priests. And chances were good that I insulted them in the same manner at some point in the last decade. So I made a public apology for that as well, just in case. I even apologized if I slandered Judas in such a way--because even he was a priest before he betrayed Christ. Judas is still a priest, wherever he may be in the next life.
With maturity and foresight, and in complete cooperation with the moderators of Suscipe Domine, I informed two moderators and the owner that it might be prudent to lock the thread shortly after my apology. Why? Because "Jayne and the Henpecking Witchunt Gang" like to find fault in every single thing I say these days, and past experience has proven that.
I told two moderators that due to past experience, a pile-on was likely to occur after I made my apology to Father Cekada.
No matter how good and cooperative with the moderation stafff I try to be, the thread was allowed to continue for 5 pages until it was locked, SD members were told that moderators had jobs and didn't have time to get to the matter, and I was told I had an entitlement attitude when I asked for the thread to be locked. Then I was banned.
I made a conscious decision not to be silent during the find-a-fault parade. Instead, I countered the other posters' accusations of my sincerity. Too often in today's day and age, silence implies acquiescence. And I was not wrong to apologize, nor to call to mind the office of other priests I disagree with.
In fact, much of the reasoning for my banning is based on an accusation of my intentions. "Posting with an agenda, not posting in good faith, instigating the forum?" I suppose they can read minds? How fickle. Does no one possess any reading comprehension?
Just because I apologized to Father Cekada does not mean I will agree with him. Just because I was able to exchange a few cordial words with him in private messages does not mean I will think any more lightly upon his stance with our current Holy Father.
Let's revisit what Laramie Hirsch thinks of the sedevacantist position:
[The Church] is bloodied. She is suffering. People mock Her and ask for Her suffering and death. The faithless jeer and ridicule the Church. People do not recognize the Church as God's Institution on Earth. And so, we have a large set of people who are missing the point entirely.
Christ wanted His followers near Him in those horrible final hours. Yet, they were not there with Him.
I say that sedevacantism is a schism. I say that this is a new dividing technique that Satan is using. I state that 1. sedevacantists will grow in their hatred for the True Church as the decades roll by, and that the very mention of the "conciliar Church" will produce instantaneous scoffing, 2. the sedes will never be satisfied, 3. that the sedevacantism movement will grow (as does faithlessness and atheism).
I further state that Augustine warns of people sever themselves from the Church. The sedes share the same schismatic spirit of the Donatists. Furthermore, separation from the Church becomes a sort of sacrament unto itself. I further consider sedevacantists to lack the ability to critically think about things and accept that we live in a troubled time when we are punished with bad leaders and that we have a yoke put upon us by God Himself as collective punishment. The easy and emotional thing to do is to just say "Oh, none of this is real! My fringe group has it right! I don't need that crazy pope! I'll secretly act as my own pope! I know what's best for me!" I state that true Catholics can accept this current circumstance and try to work through it, while sedevacantists cannot.
The sedevacantist mind is one of a "self-congratulating Pharisee who enjoys being part of the 'saving remnant.'" The sedevacantist mind leaps off of the Barque of Peter into the storm waters, and they are later fished out by their new master, the Devil. Such a person abandons themselves to despair, allowing themselves to become scandalized.
In arguing against the sedevacantists within the Catholic community, "To silence rather than to answer one's opponents seems the order of the day."
* * *
This is what I think of the sedevacantist position. I will continue to think this. Just because I am apologizing to Father Cekada does not mean I retract my observations about sedevacantism.
If Laramie Hirsch's apology sounds like an apology from a guy who continues to liken sedevacantism to schism, it's probably because...my apology is from a guy who continues to liken sedevacantism to schism. Critical reading skills, folks. Not too hard to comprehend. Have you even read this entire post? I doubt it.
Oh well. At least they have Jayne!