Featured Post

For Those Who Disregard Prophecy

People who snub prophecy bewilder me. They say, "I'm not obligated to pay any attention to private revelation. The strict teachin...

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Echo Chamber Cannibalizes Another Member

So, it seems the Dread Queen Penelope has decided that another enjoyable poster should be banned from Suscipe Domine The Echo Chamber. This is, of course, no surprise. In such a ridiculously feminized society as we have today, you can fully expect something like this:
Maximilian has been banned for two weeks for degrading and insulting comments towards women, and for misinterpreting and spreading errors regarding traditional Catholic teaching regarding the role of women.
Umgunti, A King of Cannibals
 Apparently, they despised the rich anecdotes Max had to share in this thread here.  Or, perhaps Penelope finally got put out with Max's objective point-by-point discussion that he carried out about babysitting, the costs of childbirth, and other modern burdens hoisted on growing families?

Here's the tail end of emotion pouring out of Penelope
...Before you make any more unfounded comments about childbirth, Maximilian, you need to do some serious reading about the history of childbirth in the U.S. and in other Western nations.
Here is the front end of Maximilian's response, calling her out, and continuing to calmly carry on with his dialectic argument.  (Emphasis mine.)
Of all the women who have made emotional responses to my point, which one has responded to the basic fact that women of today are not reproducing the next generation?In terms of "a healthy and successful society," life is a basic criteria for health. Our societies are dying. We are all on a fatal trajectory. In a few decades many nations will be only half their current size.

Birth rates are low and keep falling. The cost of having children plays a major role in this fact...
But ah!  It was yours truly who was banned for being emotional and agenda driven!  And here we see it coming from the hypocritical SD moderators, yet again.  But I digress.  It's so utterly disgraceful that Max was getting hit on all sides by the Suscipe Domine nags.  But that's what happens when you have a forum dominated by women with a few beta males who bend to every feminine demand.  

Poor Max even saw it coming.  He thought a logical approach to this madness would save him:
Where does this accusation come from? I'm the one being attacked by multiple posters at once. I didn't attack anyone. I'm talking about the facts of why there aren't more babies being born.
Unfortunately for you, Maximilian, logical dialectic does not beat their emotional rhetoric.  No matter how plainly you spelled things out to them, there was no way they would relent from their attacks on you.  Because it is actually the moderators of Suscipe Domine--and Penelope in that particular instance--who are emotional and agenda driven.  You didn't have a chance.  

In a separate thread, Erin Is Nice said that it was unfair that Maximilan should have been banned.  In true characteristic form, Penelope jumped in, squashing the thread, and threatening all of the dissenters that she would deal with all of them later.  It'd be kind of pathetic and sad if I weren't already banned, but at this point it's all bemusingly hilarious to watch the estrogenic disintegration of trust wear away The Echo Chamber like a piece of iron gathering rust.  I truly felt sorry for those who said it was "unjust" and he was being punished for being "politically incorrect."  "It seems like all of my favorite posters have been banned," another person complained.  You got that right, friend.  

It is this kind of incompetence at the top that shall lead to an eventual instantaneous or gradual exodus from The Echo Chamber, until finally there is no one left but people who do nothing but agree and fill Kaeskopf's unquenched hubris.  SD will continue to have its base erode away, no matter what quality of Catholic they champion and attract.  In time, all blue-collared Catholics with common sense will be driven out, and the place will be one great big sewing circle, courtesy of JayneK's protector-in-chief, Dread Queen Penelope, and Kaeskopf, the Indifferent--who's special power is to dart in and out of a thread hurling insults and an occasional obscenity.  Indeed, it is likely that the only people left in The Echo Chamber in the end will be the people who've actually met one another in real life.  

And with this incident, I have one more opportunity to give Sbyvl's testimony a fuller treatment.  Kaesekopf's dive-bombing non-content assault in threads is noted by someone else besides your humble Laramie:   
Back in December 2013, I was shouted down for questioning Kaesekopf and the moderators regarding their policy of permitting the atheist “Crimson Flyboy” to post subtle attacks on the Catholic faith in numerous places.
I believe Traditional Catholics need a forum where there is not an official “party line” to tow, and where all non-heretical positions on the present ecclesiastical Crisis are permitted, and where the leadership will not find an excuse to ban an individual simply because he holds a slightly different opinion on the Crisis than the administration.
I'm sorry, Sbyvl, but not only do you need to tow the party line of Suscipe Domine's position with the Church, but you will also have to refrain from mentioning evangelizing atheists (in my case) or from stating any kind of anti-feminist fact that might offend Jayne or Penelope (Maximilian's case), least you incur the wrath of one of the males who work to do their bidding.  I am sure there are many other positions you will also need to fall in line with if you are to remain on friendly terms with those people, but if you fail, you will be banned faster than lightning.

Unfortunately, there is an ever-growing list of those who have not been able to catch on to the "Echo Chamber Groupthink."  Such people were too slow to evolve into the clique, and have since been swiftly booted out of the cool 20-something's club of faux Traditionalists.    

And I can't reiterate enough: Jayne is protected on Suscipe Domine.  Her brown-nosing and manipulations work.  Not only does she fill Kaseskopf's vanity, but she is bff with Penelope.  So, if Jayne sees fit to see you gone, you might as well have Penelope up in a huff with you as well:
Jayne was at this time also a factor. Even aside from the CAF thread, she had felt the need to constantly and publicly scold me over trivial matters. She had clearly become a favorite of the SD administration, and despite her endless manipulations being exposed a number of times (example here: http://thehirschfiles.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-echo-chambers-fears-of-honesty-and.html), she still wields enormous influence with the administration of Suscipe Domine.
The different warnings Sbyvl got just illustrates that something was going on.  It's sad.  They might as well hang a sign up for the remaining thinkers of that forum: "Not enough room for you here."

But the fun and double-standards continue.  Just take a quick look at what Jayne the Humble gets away with:
Jayne made several posts on SD gloating about her “infiltration”, taunting the TD leadership with numerous “challenges” to find out which moniker she was posting under on TD. Current SD members can find these posts by looking at Jayne’s posts between September 2 and 9, when a moderator at TD was able to gather enough evidence to confirm bzmom’s true identity.
There's plenty of room for Jayne to cause trouble on other forums!  She will be tolerated, because Penelope.  And because groupthink.  But if you dare do what Maximilian did this week, and address the fems point by point about a "women's issue," you're out.  This woman, Jayne, has gotten away with more crap and led to the destruction of more associations than I have see in any other person across five forums.  You, Jayne, ought not be tolerated for what you do.

Here, Sbyvl recounts a threat Jayne made on Sbyvl's Te Deum forum:
“Next time I infiltrate this forum I will not warn you and I will not leave a trail of clues. (By the way, you were faster than I expected. Well done.) As long as this forum considers it acceptable to make negative comments about me as J A Y N E, voldemort, “certain individual”, or any other circumlocution, I will consider it acceptable to spy on you and infiltrate you. Leave me alone and I leeave you alone. Making me into an enemy is a bad idea. Bzmom was harmless. Don’t push your luck.-Jayne”
Pure gradeschool.  And yet, this kind of character is tolerated.  Meanwhile, in this week's thread with Maximilian, you get snapped at by Kaseskopf, Moderator of The Echo Chamber:

You know what surprises me?  People with enough time on their hands to actually discuss this useless shit.  Don't people have jobs? Vocations? States in life to take care of? Rosaries to pray?  It's freaking Lent. Why aren't people doing their penance? Fasting? Almsgiving? Spending some time in adoration.
Nope. Let's bitch on a forum. Let's get ourselves riled up because someone said something stupid. Grow up and just ignore them. Forum has that feature. *Ignore* Duh? One thing to always remember - You can't fix stupid.
I can't decide what amuses me more, his blatant nasty attitude, or how disinterested he sounds in keeping the forum.  Like it or not, Kaesekopf is a "leader" (cough) of some Traditional Catholics on the Internet.  Unfortunately, like most failing Catholic leaders these days, he fails to deliver.  Kaesekopf treats his forum members like a nuisance.  But what really is disappointing about Kaesekopf's conduct is how he double-dealed Sbyvl in lifting his ban (emphasis mine):
[Kaesekopf said] "I’ll remove your ban, and I’ll remove the Airing thread, but tmw89’s ban will remain, you will not recruit members to Te Deum from Suscipe Domine (either privately or publicly) [See above, please.], and I would as a sign of good will, expect you to delete the posts negative towards SD from the Other Catholic Forums thread [The entire thread has since been moved to the private chatroom subforum]."
Did he follow through?
Nope. Within hours of the previous email, KK sent me another email, this time stating he would not remove the falsehoods about myself and others in the “Airing” thread, nor would he lift my ban, until I removed all the posts I made regarding the situation in the “Other Catholic forums” thread on TD. The entire thread was eventually moved to the private chatroom subforum.
So once again, I followed through with what I said I would do, whereas Kaesekopf did not.
The many faces of Asura
There is so much fickle policy at The Echo Chamber.  How can a forum that is so incompetent and unreliable at the top survive?  Granted, they have a large base, but only for now.  They grabbed most of their members from 1. initial curiosity of their forum's founding, 2. When VoxC and Jayne were being harsh towards everyone who was critical of Pope Francis after his election, and 3. after "Impygate."  But can a club such as their's survive with such ineptitude and truly emotional agenda-driven policies as they have?

People migrated to Suscipe Domine because they thought it would be more free than what they were experiencing over at Fisheaters.  Boy!  Were they wrong!  When emotions and sentiment run high--as it does there--it won't be long before chaos and misunderstanding reign.  And when you think about it, in the end, is that not what we see as the problem with our modern institutions as a whole?  

Whether it's Kaesekopf's ninja insults, Dread Queen Penelope's (or her sidekick's) complaints about how men just don't understand women, or Archer's uneven heavy-handedness, The Echo Chamber will continue to lose credibility among its members as the months roll by.  

Does the owner and moderators of Suscipe Domine want to have a Traditional Catholic internet forum that is freer than other forums--more free than Fisheaters and CAF, as it was in the beginning--which welcomes objective and fearless discussion of all topics?  Or is the place just one great big cult of personality?  

Sorry you got banned, Maximilian.  But you can always find your old buddy, Laramie, right here at homebase.  


Saturday, February 21, 2015

Sbyvl's Testimony Against The Echo Chamber

Sbyvl has posted an account of the shenanigans he's witnessed over at The Echo Chamber.  I submit the link for your enjoyment, here:

As I predict, more are coming out as time goes by to testify the harsh and zany policies of the Suscipe Domine forum moderators.  As long as you don't think too hard for yourself, you will be in no danger of being ostracized from their city on a hill.  But if you dare to think you can question their actions, it's off with you!

Sbyvl's story takes place over months, and it's just such a mess.  His account is not a mess--it is the situation created by the SD moderators that is such a train wreck.  When I think of the horrible lawsuit that Fr. Rosica is threatening to a private layman blogger, Michael Voris' odd turnaround against Catholic media figures he used to be good colleagues with, and even the betrayal of the faithful laity at the Synod on the Family, it pains me to witness in SD yet another failure in leadership.  No matter what the case, it seems that there just are not reliable, strong, mature Catholic leader figures.  More and more, we are all scattered on islands by ourselves.  If only we could have depended on the SD leadership to have their act together. 

More needs to be said of Sbyv'ls testimony, but I'm short on time this evening.  For now, I will leave you with the comment I left at the bottom of his blog post:
What a messy story. The fact that this story is messy is a tragedy. It is messy because there is someone out there who is behaving in a messy manner.
And by messy, I mean emotional.
Look beyond Jayne. She is a wildcard that could have been dealt with more appropriately. Unfortunately, she has not been dealt with appropriately, and so she just goes willy nilly everywhere causing problems. Jayne, if you’re reading this, I doubt you have the ability to grow up. You have caused the tragic sundering of many associations over the web. This is because of your trifling. I advise you to break from all of this and seek some sort of counseling from a spiritual director, or merely give up forums and blogs for an extended period of time, and read Fr. Ripperger’s “Introduction to the Science of Mental Health.”
But beyond Jayne, you see enablers. These people who have enabled Jayne are also capricious. They are unpredictable, inconsistent, and unfortunately they have thrown a lasso around the majority of decent forum members who came out of Fisheaters. This namby pamby “I’ll say ‘yes,’ then do ‘no” behavior stems from a board of emotional moderators.
The indecisiveness of The Echo Chamber allows for many injustices. Whether you’re a sede who they want to root out, a brown-noser they want to keep around, or just a simple man who wants to take a stand against the tide of unrelenting hostile atheism–that forum will do whatever they please with you with no particularly dependable pattern.
The behavior of that forum’s moderators depends upon their mood, how lazy they are for that week, or how impatient they are for that week. I, myself, was banned instantaneously without warning while I was at work. No one even gave me a chance to clarify myself in my final thread. They just assumed the worst of me!
Sbyvl sympathizes with Sedevacantism. I oppose Sedevacantism, and I attend a diocesan TLM. WE ARE COMPLETE OPPOSITES ON THE TOPIC ABOUT SEDEVACANTISM. I think it’s even possible we exchanged words in the past on one of the forums (probably CI). If so, we were in complete hostile disagreement.
And yet, Sbyvl and I agree completely on the nature of his testimony. We are both aware of this strange complex that The Echo Chamber’s moderators share. Most of the people who have been targeted by the Echo Chamber are aware of this passive-aggressive behavior, and we outcasts recognize each other when we read one another’s words about SD’s actions. The fact that Sbyvl and I–two opposites on the sede issue–agree on this matter is a substantial fact to consider. If you are an outsider looking in on this issue, consider well the fact that you have two opposites agreeing so closely on this.
I’ve said this before, but I think it is a tragedy that all of us Traditionalist Catholics are scattered everywhere like this. If we are going to try to preserve the Church and Her teachings–if we are going to try to hold onto what is right, good, and true, as passed down through the ages–then we need stronger leadership than this. We cannot have the lukewarm indecisiveness or abrupt and impulsive actions from people in charge. In this culture war, it only harms us when we are under the umbrella of recklessly spontaneous masters. Such behavior reeks of irresponsibility. Large groups of Catholics have been trying to network with each other over the past decade, and either we are betrayed by leaders who won’t protect us from seeping filth, or we’re cherry picked out of the community if they don’t like us.

SSPX: Yes? No? ; Sodomy Synod ; Fathers Attacking Children

Watching these replies to Michael Voris' Mic'd Up program reminds me that I am honestly out of my depth on determining the exact boundaries of the Church's post-conciliar crisis.  I have never taken an official stand against the SSPX.  I will not lie.  I was leaning more towards the camp that the SSPX was in the wrong and schismatic in the past handful of months.  And, in fact, to this moment I would favor sticking it out in a Novus Ordo parish to transform it for the better, rather than leaving the diocese's jurisdiction and running off to where I was not needed.  I feel that the Church needs people to stand up for what is right and good.  The Church needs laity to stand up for Her traditions in the face of Modernism, and running off strikes me as abandonment.

So, in my mind I thought I had come to a decision, and I even initially watched the latest Mic'd Up episode in agreement.  But then, a slew of reactions to ChurchMilitantTV came from the other side.  I cannot lie.  What the opposition said was compelling.  It does give me pause.  SSPX: right or wrong?  It is beyond my station to know for sure.  I never said I was a theologian or a Church lawyer.

If I could make an analogy to this this ongoing dialogue, I would liken it to a poker game.  Every time I see one side put out some poker chips, the other player sees them and raises their opponent even more chips.  I do not detect any hesitation on the part of the SSPX or their sympathizers to go all the way in discussing the legality and rightness of their cause.  Meanwhile, those faithful to "conciliar forces" seem to only attack the SSPX on its peripheries.

Alas, in all of this, I feel as though I am seeing two churches here.

First, here is Louie Verrechio's Vimeo response, titled  "Tradwriter 25: Michael Voris almost gets the SSPX..."  I would put the video up here on the blog, but unfortuately, Blogger has not enabled a way to put Vimeo videos up yet.


Verrechio follows up with the following video, titled "Tradwriter 26: Is Vatican II an integral part of the tradition of the Church?"  Verrechio seems to be under the impression that ChurchMilitantTV will allow some of what Voris labels as "Reactionary Catholics" on air to explain who they are, or perhaps even, to defend themselves.  But we shall see about that.  The video is here:


John Vennari of Catholic Family News, of course, wanted to respond to Michael Voris' criticism of his publications.  He, too, put out two videos in response to the Mic'd Up episode.  Vennari argues that the SSPX is not in schism, and he quotes Vatican cardinals to back his claim.  Vennari then states that Michael Voris is employing a big media tactic, and he goes on further to address a perceived error on the part of Michael Voris.  


Venarri's second video:


Finally, Michael Matt at The Remnant wanted to respond to ChurchMilitantTV's special.  Michael Matt argues that CMTV is hitting The Remnant below the belt, goes on to discuss some basic facts, and his colleague Chris Ferarra demonstrated his immediate feelings towards CMTV in a more open fashion.

I find this troubling, disappointing, and somewhat depressing, as I've seen both Matt and Ferarra featured without issue on previous Vortex episodes as allies.  Catholics just keep spreading further from each other as the months and years pass.

During the 2011 Roman Forum in Italy, both Michael Matt and Ferarra were interviewed about the importance of that event.  Michael Matt was a guest on a Mic'd Up episode--which has recently been scrubbed off of YouTube.  And, Michael Voris himself was present at the 2013 Catholic Identity Conference, where he lectured alongside many of those he has criticized as "Reactionary."

That the Church is in crisis, there is no doubt.  I do not have any affection for the Novus Ordo style or the thinking that comes along with it.  It strikes me as disrespectful to Christ's Body.  In fact, it strikes me as a sort of snub when I see tabernacles shoved off to the side, away from the seemingly man-worshiping altar.

But to snag potential laity from the jurisdiction of recognized Church dioceses?  It seems to be taking things too far.  And yet, how can I dispute the seemingly well-laid arguments put forth by the SSPX and their friends?

Sodomy Synod    

Speaking of dissent in the Church, E. Michael Jones' journal, Culture Wars, has put out a marvelous article discussing the plotting and conniving from seeming progressive cardinals who've been running the Synod.  Robert Kempson goes in detail about the back and forth between the major players--those who seem to want to change Church doctrine without officially changing it, and those who are trying to stand up to the passive-aggressive machine that appears polite and harmless at first, but is actually ruthless in its nature.

Read the fantastic article here: http://www.culturewars.com/2015/Synod.htm

I particularly enjoyed Kempson's overview of Cardinal Kasper's past attacks on the immutability of God:
In 1967 Kasper explicitly linked the immutability of God with “a rigid worldview.” It is precisely because God is immutable, Kasper argues, that He “is the guarantor of the status quo and the enemy of the new.” If the revolution against the divine order of creation that was proceeding rapidly in the world was to triumph also in the Church it was necessary that the immutability of God be denied. If the divine nature itself could be made subject to change then everything else, including the moral law, must also be considered mutable. Kasper therefore sought to enchain God to “history” and therefore to “progress” and “evolution”. This error, repeated in essence in his 2013 book, lies at the heart of the whole “progressive” agenda at the synod.
The idea that our shepherds want to give in and change the rules in order to accommodate our human nature shows their inability to put on the New Man--that is, the Man who is Christ. Traditionalists may appear to be old-fashioned fuddy-duddies, and they can call us triumphalists all they want, but it is actually those with proclivities towards Modernism who are actually hearkening back to the model of the Old Man, the paleo-man, the man we know as Adam--Adam, who gave into the convincing words of his wife Eve, because it was emotionally comfortable. Giving into what is easy and comfortable is as old as Adam, but living up to the immutable standard that God has set for us all is what truly defines the New Man, and that is what we as Catholics must strive for.

The New Adam vs The Old Man Adam

Our Lord's immutable and unchanging nature is a rock and a foundation for us all to depend upon. It is our so-called "modern society" that pushes us off the cliff in the race to become a civilization of noodles, bending into whatever form is possible, even if it is ultimately a hideous form.

Cardinal Kasper claims that an immutable God is "an enemy of the new?" No wonder there is so much anxiety in our post-Christian society.

Shepherds Attacking Their Sheep

Speaking of seemingly-humble-but-actually-vicious clergy in the higher echelons of the Church hierarchy, the actions of Father Thomas Rosica are absolutely reprehensible.  This priest--who has the cush job of working in the Holy See Press Office--sees fit to threaten a lawsuit against a Catholic family man who is hoping to retire in a few years.  Why?  Because this Canadian man, who most likely blogs in his spare time out of the conviction in his heart for the Church, dares to call Fr. Rosica out for his opinions during this fiasco with the Synod on the Family.

I doubt that Fr. Rosica understands that his actions are like that of a father threatening one of his children.  I doubt that Fr. Rosica has the psychological aptitude to understand that he is not threatening an equal.  He probably does not realize that this blogger is not some fellow priest with another cush career with money to throw away.  Fr. Rosica probably does not realize that this blogger cannot depend upon the Church for a roof over his head, a retirement fund, or some sort of pay.  I highly doubt that Fr. Rosica has any inkling of what it means to function in the secular world, scraping together paychecks in a harsh godless society to make ends meet.

So, that's one more priest whose decisions I do not respect in the least.  Add it to your list.

Consequently, I would like to fully endorse the website of the man who runs the website, Vox Cantoris.  It looks very well done, and the blogger appears to be a devoted Catholic.  I will continue to visit his page, and let y'all know if I find anything noteworthy.

Vox Cantoris

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Sedes and SSPX: ChurchMilitantTV Fires One Across Your Bow

Ever pick up a stick and hit a beehive filled with killer bees until they come pouring out?  Have you ever walked up to a fence and taunted a pack of wild dogs on the other side?  Ever go to the untreated patients in a burn ward and throw salt everywhere?

All of that came to mind today after seeing Church Militant TV's discussion about various Catholic media.  But the foremost segment that came to mind was the third part.  In this third part, Michael Voris has guests Christine Niles and Peter O'Dwyer on to talk about the Reactionary Catholic media, namely The Remnant and Catholic Family News.

I was very happy to see this discussion of the "Reactionary Catholic Media" today.  A psychoanalysis has been sorely needed.  I enjoy discussions about this group of people as a whole.  You just don't see that too often.

I am hopeful that we might be able to see more discussions about the "Reactionary Catholics."  It is a group I find myself involved in, and it is a group that I tend to identify with one way or another.

Also, I'm glad that they did not have the audacity--as Catholic Answers did--to just blow off this group, mock them, and call them "Rad Trads."

My question now will be: will they explore the ideas put forth by CMTV?  Or will these ideas be immediately criticized?


Monday, February 9, 2015

Pulling Punches

As I said before, Greg at Cathinfo was banned.  I suppose Greg's style was proving too much for Matt, and so he was shown the door.  Okay, that is fine.  In another development, Matthew told me that he would also ban people based on what they might say outside of the Cathinfo forum.  To this, I say, that is also fine.  It's within Matt's right to do what he wants with his forum.

Consistent and Masculine

Going a little further, though, it can also be said that Cathinfo has always been a straight up no-nonsense forum that is consistent.  Matt does what Matt wants.  I have yet to see Matt renege on some sort of overriding principle or make a hypocritical statement.  There has been no contrary behavior on the part of Cathinfo's owner.  For the most part, that forum has been reliably steady, which is why people tended to be attracted to it in the beginning of Fisheater's troubles.  

Te Deum, also, has proven to be a place of consistency.  To date, Te Deum is not a forum of wild policies.  It is run in a sober and straightforward manner, and after reading the rules and a few posts, it is easy to know what to expect from moderators.  I have a clear idea of what is tolerated on the Te Deum forum, and this firm manner of running the forum is quite honest, and they do not pull any punches. 

Consistent and Masculine

I would even go so far as to say that the latter two forums are run in a very mature and even masculine fashion.  I really do not get the impression that either Cathinfo or Te Deum are run by emotional children.  

Yet, the latest imbroglio over at The Echo Chamber has had me in stitches.  It seems that there is a thread in which an agenda-driven poster there (Scrappy) as well as Jayne have been rambling on and qualifying their seemingly veiled support for homosexuality.  It was an emotional thread that was moderated in an emotional fashion, stretching over 24 pages. 

Greg blew up in typical Greg fashion, which I enjoyed reading.  He called out Jayne, but then was castigated for daring to remind everyone about what kind of forum poster she was.  I truly hope that Greg will not be banished from there, as ostracization is a rather crude method of punishment from people to claim to be high-minded.  

In any event, Penelope the moderator came on the last page, declaring that emotions had "been running high."  She reminded everyone that they are all Catholics there, and that it should be assumed "that we are all doing our best to work out our salvation as we go through life."

How sweet.  

After that, the moderator, Penelope, condemned the fact that people continue to bring up events that transpired at Fisheaters.  But I will simply state that this happens because Suscipe Domine became the default location for all of the sensible Fisheaters who made an exodus out of the Fisheaters forum.  So...of course you will have people mentioning their former online home.  

So, according to SD moderators, a decent Catholic forum is to block discussion about other forums--except Catholic Answers Forum?  CAF is okay, I guess, since it's just so radically liberal and different from "true" Traditionalists.  Right?  How silly.  

The posters at SD clearly want something different from what goes on at FE or CAF, and yet, the posters are hypocritically prevented from talking about those two forums.  One would think that discussion of goings-on at other Catholic sites would be completely relevant for the perennial discussions of Traditional Catholics.

Yet, the constant micro-managing by SD moderators demonstrates an ignorance of these facts.  The members of The Echo Chamber are treated like children, and the safest way to remain on board is to have polite little namby-pamby discussions and digital high-fives.  Indeed, the safest way to remain in any echo chamber of any kind is to simply restate trite non-confrontational things over and over, and shirk from every single challenge that presents itself.

As a connoisseur of online Catholic forums, I would like to reiterate just how much I am bored with cutesy little exchanges that are filled with compliments and smiley-filled reinforcement chats.  My brain works at higher levels than that.  My IQ is higher than 80.  A hearty steak of conversation is what people always seem to be looking for, and for such talk you only need look for a thread that lasts beyond 30 pages.  Why would a team of moderators exit their clown car to stop such a thing?

A clear psychoanalysis of the SD forum is obviously craved by more than just yours truly.  The writing on the wall about Jayne's behavior (behavior which helped in getting me banned) is becoming more obvious to all, and moderator tolerance of such behavior is frustrating the proletariat.  Again, consider what Greg has said about the recent mess in The Echo Chamber:

Are we allowed to bring up people's posting history from any other place on the Internet? What about Cathinfo, or the Thinking Athiest?
Consider what would have happened in the pre-Internet Trad world, known as the "tea-room" had you expressed an opinion after Assisi, that John Paul II was only "smelling the leather" on the Koran. Had you tried to defend JP2's other heterodox actions as innocent after that you would have been shot down in flames and your stupidity, gullibility or downright dishonesty over him "smelling the leather" would have been brought up.
You would have been reminded of your stupidity and mocked for at least another decade and this is a good thing, because it forces fools to shut up on topics they've shown ill-will or profound ignorance on. If they are of good will and humble then they will realise how stupid they have been on that issue and shut up about it in future, understanding that their opinion was so profoundly in error before that their credibility has been torn to pieces for a long time to come.

Someone who can square Transexualism and Traditional Catholicism is either an incredible ignoramus or they are deliberately trolling and they enjoy causing controversy in order to get their intellectual rocks off. Perverse and contrary. My informed opinion over 5 years of watching Jayne post is that she is the latter. Perhaps she has some loose wires and does not realize she is doing it, but she is doing it and many posters recognize it.

As usual, Greg talks common sense and throws it out there plain as day.  His entire post is great, actually, and I'm seriously considering posting it all for posterity.  

Unfortunately, confrontation with actual issues boggles the minds of Echo Chamber moderators.  Indeed, if SD cannot handle discussions about evangelizing atheists, how can they possibly stomach a few of their own members who start to question the forum policies?  And so, Greg was summarily banned along with Jayne for three whole days.  This once more reveals the hypocritical behavior of The Echo Chamber.  

Why is The Echo Chamber hypocritical in banning Greg for three days?  Because just last October, Greg was already banned, and he was warned one last time that if there was any kind of rough talk, and he would be banned permanently.  So, with this weekend's three-day ban, The Echo Chamber has reneged on their threat to Greg and only banned him for three days.  And a look inside the "Banned Members and Reasons" thread will show that Jayne, also, has been banned a bit more than your average SD member.    

These two repeat offenders, Greg and Jayne, have been given a good couple of chances.  Meanwhile, I'm-not-Catholic Scrappy--who clearly has an agenda on the forum--has not been banned at all.  I am not even aware that Scrappy has been warned.  This is two-faced and capricious behavior on the part of Suscipe Domine.  Clearly, agenda-driven posting is allowed, and clearly there's plenty of emotionalism for everybody.  What contradictory action!  Suscipe Domine is an emotional forum run emotionally.    

And yet, I was the one singled out for all of the above.

Suscipe Domine: where talk of evangelizing atheists will not be tolerated.

This was all completely predictable as recently as a year ago.  After a series of bannings for the most trivial of actions, it became clear to me that Suscipe Domine moderators are highly interested in cherry picking only those members who build up their own hubris.  And in that regard, The Echo Chamber is not much different from Catholic Answers Forum.

If you are wanting milquetoast conversation and a moderating team that is easily intimidated--and you want to go someplace besides CAF or a Mark Shea blog, you people know where to go.    


*The "emotional" 24-page thread on Suscipe Domine has since been shut down.  Yours truly, however, heartily encourages confrontation and dust-ups, as that's the only real way to work out ideas.  I therefore invite everyone who is still interested in continuing that conversation to my humble patio.  Here, in my arena, you have the freedom to pull out your stilettos and have at it to your heart's content.  That's one of the reasons why The Hirsch Files is here.  It is for you, my fellow exiles, to come and catch your breath.

You say that error has no rights?  Then step right up, duke it out, and put a knife through the heart of error, if you have the fortitude.

Thursday, February 5, 2015

Rabbitgate3: Duty of Motherhood vs the Abuses of NFP

I know that my previous post about Pope Francis' "Rabbits" lecture was mostly a list to different sources that talked about his speech and the ramifications thereof.  However, I continue to find good sources that offer the correct view and teaching of the Church.

In the following audio from a Catholic priest, we learn that God created marriage for two specific purposes:

1. For the procreation and education of children.

2. And that God intends that men and women offer mutual help and comfort in a cruel world, and a remedy for concupiscence.

Pope Francis says there are "so many ways that are licit and that have helped this." That is, there are so many ways to "help" you from having kids.

I don't know of those "many ways" that our Holy Father is referring to.  I know that the birth control pill as well as abortion are grave sins.  I do know that Natural Family Planning is a tool that can be used in grave circumstances.  But I also know that Natural Family Planning is not Catholic Birth Control--just another form of birth control to be used to limit your family's size per your convenience.  No, we are still to be open to God's plan.

This video is called The Sanctity of Marriage: The Duty of Motherhood vs the Abuses of NFP

I continue to forget who this priest is, but he's great.