The Sacred Heart: A Call To Deepen Our Love For God

 

To My Readers: This week my monthly guest poster, Mr. Dominic Caggeso, gives us some beautiful and thoughtful insight regarding the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. I can't think of a better way to end this month of June, traditionally dedicated to the Most Sacred Heart, and now a month recently defiled and desecrated by perverts. Feel free to comment as always. If anyone has a specific question or comment for me, I will respond as usual, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo.  

The Sacred Heart: A Call To Deepen Our Love For God

By Dominic Caggeso

“A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth that which is evil. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” - St. Luke 6: 45

The world is an ugly place, inwardly impoverished and full of corruption and death. Natural virtues, gifts of God that propel a soul to search for Him, are so often numbed and deadened by a worldling’s acceptance of evil.  But at the same time, through the beauty and goodness of the created world, God continues to remind men of these virtues. The innocence of a child, the fragrance of spring lilacs, or the song of morning birds all serve as reminders. The collision of these two realities creates an awareness in many people, even if subconscious, that their personal lives are not what they ought to be. The human soul is created for God and His absence is a tragedy that each soul bewails. Faced with this wretchedness, they are compelled to act. Sadly, to bridge the gap between what they ought to be and who they have become through sin, they often turn to the foolish tools of pretension and deception. They sweep the dirt under the rug. I would even go so far as to say that the world is so filled with facades and costumes, that to many, honesty has lost its meaning.

As my family began our journey out of the Novus Ordo many years ago, one of the things I was so refreshed to experience was a general absence of pretentiousness among Traditional Catholics. I found myself having many discussions with new friends and acquaintances in which I walked away sensing honesty and integrity. There was much less idle chatter to fill the air and waste everyone’s time. To a much greater extent, my experience with Traditional Catholics was that they spoke truthfully.  With charity, they said what they thought, not presenting a complex system of smoke and mirrors.

Upon reflection of these experiences, I have formed some conclusions. For the most part, Traditional Catholics, Sedevacantists in particular, have made real-life decisions and sacrifices to align their lives with the Truth. When confronted with contradictions and cognitive dissonance produced by the world, the Novus Ordo and then “Recognize and Resist”, Sedes have responded by adhering to the principle of integrity. They chose not to deceive themselves, and not to consent to lies around them. Just like how waving a magnet over a pile of scattered paperclips makes them all stand on end, pointing in the same direction, so too does the mental decision to reject falsehood align our hearts, minds, and speech with the ideals of simplicity and straightforwardness.

Deconstructing facades and speaking from the heart is a good thing, for it at least allows for the possibility of honest communication. When people stop lying to themselves, they can speak more honestly to God. They can then speak more honestly to others as well. This honesty is like pulling the curtains back on a messy room that has been hidden in darkness. In the dark, the mess is relatively unnoticed, but when the curtains are pulled, the sunlight demonstrates just what a disaster the room has become. The light makes it possible to clean the room. In similar fashion, in one’s heart, when one refuses to consent to falsehood, it is like pulling back the curtain. It becomes possible to see and fix the problems in the heart. 

The ultimate goal, therefore, is to change the heart. Changes to the core will undulate outward to change thoughts, words, and actions. There is a Latin axiom: “Nemo dat quod non habet”, which means “You cannot give what you do not have”. In other words, you can’t act and speak with true virtue if you don’t possess it in your heart in the first place. It is just as Our Lord said “for out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh”. 

As I have stated already, in my experience, Traditional Catholics as a whole speak honestly and without pretentiousness. Indeed, this is remarkable in today’s world. Honest speech reflects what exists in the heart. But honesty and integrity are only prerequisites for something greater. A cup without holes maintains its integrity and is therefore useful, but in and of itself, it cannot quench your thirst.  A heart filled with zeal and virtue will spill out through the words and actions of an honest person.

Burning Heart, Burning Lips

The figures and forms of the Old Testament were like a cup waiting to be filled. It was required for Old Testament Israel to outwardly speak and practice the word of God so as to prepare for the New Testament “Israel” that would be inwardly filled with the Holy Ghost. These outer and inner relationships with God are beautifully highlighted when comparing the story of the purification of Isaias’ lips to the story of St. Margaret Mary and the Sacred Heart.

In my book, Divine Poetry, I try to demonstrate that the entire history of the Catholic Church has been entirely foreshadowed by the Old Testament, even in the same chronological order! Part of this seamless fabric of prefigurement are the stories of Isaias the prophet and St. Margaret Mary. Isaias’ lips were purified by fire for his divinely appointed mission just as St. Margaret Mary had her heart purified by fire for her divinely appointed mission. Both these two stories of purification by divine fire appear at the same point on their chronologically paralleled timelines, which is astonishing! Before we delve into a deeper significance brought about by comparing the two stories, please allow me to establish their place in history. 

1. Both St. Margaret Mary and Isaias lived in the period of the “divided Kingdom”. In the Old Testament, this was after the revolt of Jeroboam in which the northern tribes of Israel went into apostasy. In Church history, this period of divided Christendom occurred after the revolt of Martin Luther in which northern Europe went into apostasy. 

2. Both St. Margaret Mary and Isaias went before the king. Isaias predicted the end of the Davidic dynasty at the hands of the Babylonians. St. Margaret Mary went before King Louis XIV to pass on the message about the consecration of France to the Sacred Heart. After 100 years, the French monarchy ended during the French Revolution. 

In chapter six of the book of Isaias, the prophet was given the singular grace of seeing God on His throne. This vision of the inner chamber of Heaven is unprecedented in the Old Testament. The prophet Isaias comes as close to God as the Old Testament relationship with Him would permit. After Isaias declares his unworthiness before God, a seraphim angel descends and purifies Isaias by burning his lips with a hot coal from the heavenly altar. He then is sent by God to preach to a people who will not listen.

“And the lintels of the doors were moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: Woe is me, because I have held my peace; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people that hath unclean lips, and I have seen with my eyes the King the Lord of hosts. And one of the seraphims flew to me, and in his hand was a live coal, which he had taken with the tongs off the altar. And he touched my mouth, and said: Behold this hath touched thy lips, and thy iniquities shall be taken away, and thy sin shall be cleansed. And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: Whom shall I send? and who shall go for us? And I said: Lo, here am I, send me. And he said: Go, and thou shalt say to this people: Hearing, hear, and understand not: and see the vision, and know it not. Blind the heart of this people, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes: lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.”

- Isaias 6: 4-10

In Church history, St. Margaret Mary was likewise chosen by Heaven for hitherto unheard-of privileges and intimacies with Our Lord. Just as Isaias is given a singular grace to see the inner chamber of God’s throne room, so too did St. Margaret Mary receive a singular grace to be taken into the inner chambers of Our Lord’s Sacred Heart! Our Lord appeared to St. Margaret Mary various times from 1673 to 1675, making known His Sacred Heart to her, aflame with love of men. Just as Isaias had his lips purified with a hot coal from the altar in Heaven, St. Margaret Mary had her own heart purified with divine fire. 

At one point, Our Lord asked if He could have her heart, to which she willingly accepted. Her diary recounts that Our Lord took her heart from within her breast and placed it in the burning furnace of His Sacred Heart. She wrote that her heart appeared to be a small atom compared to the immense and flaming heart of Our Lord. After her heart was set ablaze, Our Lord placed it back in her breast. She later described the physical sensation of burning that she felt, a pain which she joyfully offered back to God, a remembrance and token of the intimacy she had with Our Lord. 

Afterward, Our Lord went on to lament to her, speaking words that have resounded from many pulpits over the last few centuries. In this month of June, perhaps you have heard these words, “Behold this Heart which has so loved men that it has spared nothing, even to consuming itself to witness its love. And in return, I receive from most of them only ingratitude from their irreverences and their sacrileges and by the coldness and contempt that they have for Me in this sacrament of love." In this lament by Our Lord, He makes known His desire to suffer for men, if only they would return His love. Our Lord offered His last drop of blood on the cross, dying for us. He was a suffering servant, as was prophesied in Isaias 53.

Contrast the two stories of Isaias and St. Margaret Mary, and it is yet again revealed how the incarnation, passion, death, and resurrection of Christ have fundamentally changed God’s relationship with His chosen people. Both were purified by divine fire but with a major difference. The Old Testament was an endeavor in externally obeying the laws of God. Thus, Isaias had his lips purified that he may go forth to speak. Obedience to the law was the litmus test for loving God in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, we still must obey the law of God, but we are given a much greater calling. The mere adherence to the law of God in our external actions is good, but we are capable of, and indeed invited to so much more. Like the empty cup that is capable of being filled, a desire to obey God’s laws is a starting place for deeper intimacy with Him. The story of St. Margaret Mary reminds us that Our Lord wants to go beyond the lips. He wants our hearts, the very core of our beings, and He wants them to be ablaze with charity and zeal.

Conclusion

It is an ardent love for God that forges saints, not just the profession of the Catholic Faith. As Traditional Catholics, we have preserved the Catholic Faith during the Great Apostasy and truly this is a remarkable accomplishment (through the grace of God). In doing so, we have retained the possibility of going to Heaven, just as the cup retains the possibility of being filled. Now let us make sure our charity does not grow cold, as Our Lord has warned us. May we fill up our hearts with an ardent love for God and zeal for the salvation of souls.

When Our Lord returns, may He find His Bride radiant and lively, and not merely fulfilling the outward obligations of Her duties. In the presence of the immense inequity of the world, may true Catholics respond by redoubling their zeal and charity, fueled by frequent reception of the Sacraments. The month of the Sacred Heart reminds us to continually move beyond outward purification, which is indeed necessary, and be like St. Margaret Mary who handed over her heart, only to receive it back purified by fire.

Dungeons & Dragons & Vatican II

 

Other than to place the link to my post here each week, I rarely go on "X" (formerly called "Twitter"). When I do look to see what people are saying, it never fails to reinforce what horrible shape the world is in. The last time I went on, the passage from Hosea 4:6 immediately came to mind: "My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge..." The members of the Vatican II sect are woefully ignorant of theology, and not just as concerns the papacy. This culpable ignorance bleeds into how they live every aspect of their lives and has devastating consequences.  This is true even among the so-called "conservative" members of the sect. 

I saw an X post from a young mother of three children (pregnant with her fourth child) and goes by the moniker Daughter of Wolves. The name seemed odd. She describes herself as a "Catholic" (Vatican II sect) homeschooling mom. She presents as being in her late twenties. The next part made it clear as to the reason for the strange name: she is a Dungeons & Dragons (aka "D&D") enthusiast, who was taking a poll as to what she should name her "human Circle of the Moon Druid" character in the game. 

For those of you who are unaware, D&D is one of several fantasy role playing games (FRP). It was introduced in 1974 by Gary Gygax (d. 2008), and became a sensation in the 1980s. Gygax was a member of the Jehovah's Witness sect; it is rumored that he became a "born-again" Protestant just prior to his death. D&D, as I will demonstrate, is thoroughly occult. When I informed this woman, she laughed and said I was "really dumb.” I challenged her to debate me on an online neutral debating platform, and I would prove my contention. She refused, ostensibly because she's too busy with her kids. Interesting, since she has hours at her disposal to frequently post on X and play D&D. 

The reason I challenge Feeneyites and other enemies of the Faith to debate is three-fold. First, once they see the arguments, with God's grace, they may be persuaded to leave falsehood for truth. Second, it would give others exposure to the arguments and possibly make converts. Finally, it shows that most people (esp. those against the Faith) can't defend their beliefs and would rather be with a comforting lie than the upsetting truth which would demand they make changes in their beliefs and lives. No one has ever taken me up on my challenge. Earlier this year, Bobby Dimond ("Brother Peter") came to challenge me in the comments to a post. Needless to say, I enjoyed giving Bobby an intellectual beat-down so others could see just how false the Feeneyite position is against the dogma of Baptism of Desire. 

(See introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-dimonds-ensoulment-and-baptism-of.html). 

For this reason, the first Monday of each month is my "Contending For The Faith" series of apologetics so we may, as our first pope tells us, "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." (1Peter 3:16). Therefore, I was hoping to take "Daughter of Wolves" and her family away from occult danger, and perhaps to the One True Church as well. 

Another person jumped into the thread, another Vatican II sect member going by the name "Darthjimscott." As soon as I saw "Darth" I knew he was into the occult with the Star Wars franchise. He claimed D&D was harmless and not at all like the Ouija board, to which I compared it. He further used a citation to Wojtyla's Catechism of the Catholic (sic) Church, which defines superstition, and said he is not involved with superstition by playing D&D. Finally, he said D&D was no different than Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. I challenged him to debate and (no surprise) he wouldn't. 

Lastly, some persons have posted, now and in the past, that my blog has good material, but when I claim that many things (like D&D) are occult, it seems like I see Satan everywhere. I usually just  politely reply that the problem is not that I see Satan everywhere, but that most people refuse to see him anywhere. We are living in the Great Apostasy, with a false sect claiming to be the Catholic Church. Is it really a surprise that Satan is having the best time ensnaring souls with an occult revival/explosion in the wake of Vatican II? 

This post will explain the occult danger of FRP games like D&D, and how they continue unabated in popularity. The abysmal failure of the Vatican II sect to protect its members will also be demonstrated. 

 (I would like to credit the various sources of information culled for the writing of this post. Besides the cited sources, I also wish to acknowledge Gary Gygax, "The Dungeons and Dragons Magic System," The Best of the Dragon,  [1980]; Gary Gygax, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Players' Handbook, [1978]; Gary Gygax, Dungeons and Dragons Players' Handbook, [1975] as among my primary sources. Special acknowledgement as well to the "Spiritual Counterfeits Project's" numerous pamphlets which were highly informative. I also browsed numerous book and online resources about FRP games which were incorporated herein. I take no credit other than putting it all together in a readable post.---Introibo). 

FRP Games: The Facts from the Beginning

Dungeons and Dragons began as an offshoot of the war games of the late 1950s and 1960s, such as Bismarck and Gettysburg. These games involved the use of strategy and the playing out of historical battles with miniature soldiers and landscapes. Thus, war-gaming of the recent past was extended into the ancient past along a "swords and sorcery" theme, where the life and battles of various heroes or wizards could be played out. 

D&D is an elaborate fantasy game played out primarily in one's mind using creative imagination. There are dice, although no cards or boards; there are no strict rules, only guidelines. There are also no absolutes, no boundaries, and no time limitations, since FRP games are not single experience contests but ongoing adventures or campaigns traversing from one episode to another. In theory, a single game could last a lifetime. The "dungeon master," or referee, is someone who is very experienced in D & D. He shapes the fantasy milieu with the aid of maps, monster lists, combat tables, and the psychological and geographical terrain the players will travel. This may involve multilevel dungeons, various occult planes of existence, towns, and other worlds or time periods. All of this is mapped out on graph paper, complete with wizards, treasures, monsters, magical objects, traps, potions, demons, and the gods who reside throughout the various regions.

Each player selects a character whose role he assumes, such as a fighter, assassin, monk, druid, magic user, or thief. The thief, apparently, is one of the best characters to emulate according to the players' handbook. Characters are assigned strengths or weaknesses on a scale of 3 to 18 and six principle attributes, including intelligence, strength, and wisdom—all determined by a toss of the dice. A racial stock is also selected from among gnomes, humans, dwarfs, and elves. Each player must decide his or her character's alignment, whether good, neutral, or evil.

Little has changed in the 50 years since D&D was introduced. There is a renewed interest in these D&D-type FRP games (and D&D itself) among "conservative" Vatican II sect members and (sadly) even some Traditionalists. According to one source, as of 2023:

• More than 50 million people play Dungeons & Dragons.
• Dungeons & Dragons is most popular in Canada.
• D&D grew 65% in just one year in Europe.
• D&D fans watch 4.3 billion minutes of D&D-related media yearly.
• Dungeons & Dragons has been steadily growing since 2014.
• It’s been the leading tabletop game since it came out.

(See webtribunal.net/blog/how-many-people-play-dnd#gref). 

The Many Problems with FRP and D&D

A major problem with FRP is that the worldview in which most of these games are conducted is either not Catholic or anti-Catholic, and although played out in fantasy, it can still have an impact on young or impressionable minds. In the past, similar games at least had a concrete historical setting, often with a moral basis underlying the conflict. Today the games comprise a mixture of fantasy, mythology, and often the occult. Most players participate without ever considering the worldview in which they are role playing. This means that they do not consider how this might be contrary to their own philosophy and beliefs.

FRP games are addictive, and many people will play for hours on end. After such exposure, players may not notice subtle negative changes that may be occurring in their lives as a result of playing the game. If they do notice, they may not attribute the changes to the games. If you contrast the general perspective of D&D and related FRP games with a Traditionalist Catholic worldview, you can see the possible impact such games may have. The issue is to what extent a "crossover" effect may occur, such that aspects of the role being played in an extended fantasy game are gradually adopted in real life.

For example, most FRP games present no system of absolute morality; morality is for the individual to choose or reject as the player sees fit. Thieves, assassins, sorcerers, and witches may all be role-played and even developed into a kind of "alter ego." In general, FRP games perceive the universe as amoral. Good and evil are presented as equal, opposite poles, and both the characters and the "gods" are expected to align themselves with one pole or the other.

Although each player brings his own innate moral standards, the game itself provides the player with the potential for laying aside those standards. Thus, in many of these games, an immoral use of power, sex, or violence is acceptable. Even activities such as stealing, mutilation, human sacrifice, murder, and rape can be incorporated into the games. Only the pragmatism of the overriding situation and the good or evil characters involved determine the best course of action, or what is "right" or "wrong." Obviously, this contrasts with the Traditionalist Catholic worldview, in which morality is absolute and grounded in the character and nature of a holy God.

The theology of most FRP games is not Catholic. Probably because of the diversity they offer, FRP games generally present a polytheistic rather than monotheistic worldview; that is, they present the belief in many gods rather than the One True God. As the D&D manual, Deities and Demigods, asserts, "No fantasy world would be complete without the gods, mighty deities who influence the fate of men and move mortals about like chess pieces ..." (pg. 37). This contrasts with the Catholic teaching that there is only One True God and that this God is moral, not amoral. Most FRP games also have un-Christian or even anti-Christian views of the creation, man, and life after death. 

To summarize: The first major problem with FRPs is that they are played within a polytheistic and amoral worldview which is in stark contrast to reality. This overarching worldview can begin to influence the players, especially those who play the most often. The specific dangers of FRPs (in general) and D&D (in particular) will be examined.

The Four Dangers of FRPs

1. Fantasy. There is a good use of fantasy but also an evil use. Fantasy role playing games in general seem to promote the wrong use of fantasy by presenting character roles that assume an amoral use of power, violence, immorality, and sorcery—all things God hates. "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things." (Philippians 4:8).

Furthermore, such role playing could affect the lives of players, especially preadolescent and adolescent players, who are still in the formative stages of developing their personal philosophy, worldview, moral system, and self-image.

2. Morality. FRP games in general promote an amoral universe. In fact, the games contain many activities and practices that God forbids and condemns. Thus FRP games have the potential to undermine or negate the influence of Christian morality in a player's life. In D&D you are allowed to murder, rape. steal, and offer sacrifice to false "gods." 

3. Escape. Escape, like fantasy, can be used in a wholesome and healthy way or it can be misused. The complexity and ego-involvement in fantasy role playing games in general appears to provide the potential for an unhealthy use of escape, or at the least a wasting of valuable time.

4, The Occult. By far, the occult is the worst and most dangerous part of FRPs and D&D. Dungeons and Dragons was a forerunner of a greater acceptance of the occult in America. It became a socially accepted means of dwelling on pagan, mythological, and occult practices. 

The main characteristic of  D&D is the element of sorcery, also called magick. This fantasy game uses terms common to the occult, such as: conjure, spell casting, divination, channeling, invocation, evocation, and summon. One form of sorcery allows the character to practice a spell called the death spell or finger of death. Some characters are required to perform rituals that call upon evil spirits. 

An article in the February 1999 issue of  Dragon, a D&D magazine, lists a series of spells with names like “Chant of Dark Summons,” “Chorus of Wrath,” “Danse Macabre,” “Melody of Madness,” and “Nightmare Lullaby.” The description of one spell concludes that “[U]se of this spell is unequivocally evil” (pp. 84-88).

Characters who make mistakes can suffer punishments such as insanity, which includes being possessed by an outside entity or being seized by the desire to kill those closest to you. This role-playing by the emotionally immature or unstable can lead to mental problems.

This game’s scenarios and occult terms desensitize players to that which is bizarre and morbid, creating an acceptance of the deviant as the norm. At the very least, D&D and related FRPs expose players to occult terms and concepts. Players may want to further study the occult and engage in such occult activity. 

Even some occultists have utilized these games, either as a means to introduce occult ideas through entertainment, or as a way to encourage people to accept genuine necromancy. In 1980, Philip Bonewitz published Authentic Thaumaturgy: A Professional Occultist on Improving the Realism of Magic Systems in Fantasy Simulating Games for just this purpose.

The problem is that this is not merely an "innocent" introduction to the occult, but as stated, what is played out in the imagination as a game can also be pursued in a serious manner in real life. Moreover,  the individual player has no guarantee that just because he is "merely" engaged in use of the imagination, demons will not respond when beckoned. In fact, many psychics and mediums (such as Erika Gabriel) recommend the use of the fantasy imagination to help foster psychic development and actual spirit contact.

The playing of the game could, therefore, engage demonic activity. In D&D there is also a preponderance of spells for different characters, levels, categories, and expectations. Some spells are bestowed by the gods; others are not. Most spells have a verbal component, which means they must be spoken to be effective and the player finds himself reciting an actual Wiccan spell.

The "magic circle, pentagram, and thaumaturgic triangle" have all been incorporated into Dungeons and Dragons. Players are taught how to use these symbols as forms of protective inscriptions in a fashion similar to the way they are actually used in Wicca and Satanism. The occult practice of "astral projection," or "soul travel," can be found in a few FRP games, including D&D. In astral projection, it is believed that the soul can depart from the body and travel to other dimensions and planes. According to Dungeons and Dragons, this practice is possible by various means, including specific magic spells and "psionic" disciplines.

In Dungeons and Dragons, necromantic spells not only heal wounds, restore strength, limbs, and life, and resurrect the dead, but they also bring forth the dead for divinational and other purposes, in a manner similar to that in spiritism. If a cleric, for example, needs information, he knows that he may summon the dead with a spell. "Upon casting a speak with the dead spell the cleric is able to ask several questions of a dead creature in a set period of time and receive answers according to the knowledge of the creature" (See Dungeons and Dragons Players' Handbook, pg. 48; Emphasis mine).

The D&D Monster Manual has a detailed section devoted solely to demons. They are named, described (complete with an artist's sketch), and categorized according to their varying abilities and powers. Players are encouraged to use this information in conjunction with certain spells to summon these beings. Thus, a cleric, for example, using a seventh level gate spell, knows that he "must name the demon, devil, demigod, god, or similar being he or she desires to make use of the gate and come to the cleric's aid." He is also told that there is "a 100% certainty that something will step through the gate"(pg. 53). Occult alignment with supernatural powers or deities can be found in some of the FRP games. Players must worship a false, pagan "god."

D&D manuals suggest research into the occult. One bibliography recommends E. A. Wallis Budge's The Egyptian Book of the Dead and Sr. James Frazier's The Golden Bough. The former is a potent occult volume chronicling ritualistic preparations and instructions for the dead in their postmortem state; the latter, an anthropological compendium on occult practices in primitive societies. Is this game not, in effect, encouraging its participants to concentrate their investigation on the supernatural and even occult aspects of pagan cultures?

Objections Answered

Objection: These games are mere fantasy. You are not actually engaging in any proscribed activity such as necromancy. To compare D&D to the Ouija board, which is actual necromancy, is absurd.

Response: That the Ouija board is more dangerous than D&D, CONCEDED. That D&D is not occult like the Ouija board, DENIED.  The very nature of D&D, and FRP in general, is such that the imagination is being guided into encounters with nonmaterial entities, forces, or spirits. Those entities, we are told, are mere fantasies with no basis in reality. If, however, those entities do actually exist in the real world, then the line of demarcation between what is pure fantasy and what is actual contact with spiritual, demonic forces becomes extremely abstruse if not entirely nonexistent. This is hardly to infer that there is no difference between actual participation in occult activities and imagining the same, or that every time someone participates in imaginative occult activity one will come in contact with occult forces. I'm simply pointing out that relegating "occult contact" to mere imagination does not guarantee one freedom from demonic influence. Actual mediums have used the imagination to effectuate contact with demons.

Today, classes in psychic and spiritual development use imagination and visualization techniques in their methodology to achieve out-of-body experiences, develop occult powers, and foster contact with spirits. Many of the most popular books on various occult themes allude to these same techniques. Whether one accepts it or not, simple imagination has been used to establish spirit contact (e.g., when an imaginary "inner adviser" suddenly becomes a real being). There are numerous cases in occult literature where demons have actively sought out human contacts under the guise of an "imagined" patron god, ascended master, inner counselor, or spirit helper.

Is it sinful (like actual necromancy) to fantasize about it? I have no Magisterial authority to declare anything a sin. However, consider the following:

• it has the real potential to open a gate to the demonic
• Our Lord said in St. Matthew 5:28, "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." We commit sins in word, deed, and thoughts. 
• If Jesus considered one's lusting after a woman in his heart (i.e., fantasy) tantamount to adultery, what would He say about someone's pursuing the occult in his mind (i.e., fantasy)? Would He approve, or would He say it was wrong? If one's mind is centered upon the "imaginative" use of occult power, is he not at least tolerating the idea of its use? Furthermore, what about thoughts concerning murder, rape, theft, and worshipping false gods? Ask yourself, "Is this something a Traditionalist Catholic should be doing?" 

Objection: You're not opposed to The Lord of the Rings which has a wizard and casts spells. It's no different from D&D.

Response: Lord of the Rings (LOTR) is not at all like D&D. The "wizard" Gandolf, gets his power from the "One" (God) in a Christian allegory. Tolkien was a devout Catholic, and said as much. The worldview of LOTR is decidedly monotheistic with strict and objective moral values. Incorrect use of power corrupts. The Ring is not to be had (like sin) and if you keep it, your sin will become "precious" to you and totally corrupt you. 

To compare that to a worldview that is polytheistic, amoral, and sanctions fantasy about murder, rape, and sacrificing to false gods, is sheer lunacy.

Objection: Can't you have an FRP without all the occult elements?

Response: Perhaps, but then we are not talking about D&D. There are no "Christian FRPs" as far as I'm aware. I would need to thoroughly investigate any such FRP, to see if it really avoids the serious problems of all FRPs of which I am aware. 

If you take away the occult from D&D, nothing would be left. It's analogous to saying, "Let's play Monopoly without any money, without any buying of real estate, and without trying to get rich." You no longer have Monopoly. (Maybe "Bernie Sanders' Socialism"?). 

Objection: You're a fundamentalist Protestant now. They were the ones condemning D&D back during the "Satanic Panic" of the 1980s.

Reply: The Satanic infestation was real in the 1980s. It was what I call the real take-off of the Occult revival/invasion. There were some exaggerations, but it was very real. I liken it to Senator Joe McCarthy whose only fault was overestimating the number of Communist infiltrators by about 10%. Yes, Protestants sounded the alarm, which shows how inept the Vatican II sect is in protecting its members. It doesn't even try, as it leads them to perdition. Fundamentalist Protestants were also the most vociferous in fighting abortion in the 1980s. They certainly weren't wrong about that either.

Vatican II was Originally Set to Condemn the Occult

 When false pope Roncalli (John XXIII) called Vatican II in 1959, the most eminent and approved theologians drew up the original schemas (drafts) of the documents to be debated and voted upon. These schemas were Catholic to the core. In 1962, the Modernists, with Roncalli helping them, got them scrapped, and new schemas were drawn up by Modernist theologians rehabilitated by "good Pope John." They became the heretical teachings of the Robber Council.

One of the orthodox schemas scrapped was entitled, "The Dogmatic Constitution Defending Intact the Deposit of Faith." The name alone sent chills down the spines of Modernists. For those who think I see Satan everywhere, it was the most Catholic theologians who saw the occult raising its ugly head and wanted to combat it. This was circa 1960--64 years ago when there was still a hierarchy with Magisterial authority and the True Mass and sacraments. After Vatican II sent the One True Church underground, the floodgates were opened, and Satan wasted no time dragging as many souls as possible to Hell. Thus began the Occult Invasion. Here is what para. nos. 33, 34, and 35 of that beautiful schema had to say about the occult:

Para. #33: Such curiosity becomes truly pernicious when it moves believers to give themselves over to the superstition of divination of any form, but especially to that spiritualism that attempts by human effort to evoke sensible communication with spirits or with separated souls in order to attain various information or various helps. "There shall not be found among you anyone who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer.. For the Lord abominates all these things" (Dt 18:10-12). The Apostolic See has not neglected in various of its documents to oppose evil spiritualism with appropriate remedies.

Para. #34: In many regions superstition is creeping widely and is being spread more every day, sometimes also deceitfully under the false title of parapsychology, the discipline whose task it is to explain facts that appear to contradict the ordinary laws of psychology. The Sacred Council declares that the divine law prohibits as a very serious sin against religion both to want to call out the souls of the dead and to wish to establish perceptible communications with them or with any other spirits, however it may be done, publicly or privately, even if the intention is to address only good spirits and the whole exhibition has the appearance of propriety, piety and religion. It forbids all Christians even out of mere curiosity to attend or to promote in any way spiritualist sessions or other meetings of this sort.

Para. #35: The Holy Synod does, however, exhort all the faithful to imitate the example of holy Mother Church by praying for the faithful departed that they may attain the vision of God and intercede with Him for us; it also exhorts them to commend themselves to the holy Angels who in God's fatherly providence guard the human race and are ready by direction, assistance, and enlightenment to help individuals not to succumb to their malicious enemies.

Conclusion

FRP games, including D&D, are seeped in an occult worldview. This worldview can have an adverse affect on participants by desensitizing them to all things occult, and even making a player interested enough to get involved in the occult. Moreover, thinking repeatedly and deeply about the occult can actually open the door to demons. Finally, do you want to subject yourself or others to a worldview that is decidedly polytheistic and amoral? Is perseverating over fantasy acts of murder, rape, and theft something that is mentally healthy or morally acceptable for a member of Christ's One True Church? I must pray for that woman's eyes to be opened that her homeschooled children will not be exposed to such evil.

It's no surprise that when people lack even basic discernment and fail to see the evil present in D&D and FRP games that they are mostly members of the Vatican II sect. After all, they fail to see the phony in the Modernist Vatican who role plays the part of "pope" and leads as many as he can to Hell. 

Addendum: Are Sedevacantists "Protestants"?

To My Readers: "Darth" from "X" came into the comments claiming that Traditionalists (i.e., true Catholics who hold the sedevacantist position) are "Protestants."  Such massive theological ignorance explains why this man plays and defends D&D. This Addendum will expose the culpable ignorance of the charge.---Introibo

Protestants are, by definition, heretics. Heresy is defined as "A teaching which is directly contradictory to a truth revealed by God and proposed to the faithful as such by the Church." (See theologian Parente, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Bruce Publishing Company, [1951], pg. 123). It is up to "Darth" to explain what dogma we sedes (Traditionalists) deny. 

No Traditionalist denies the office of the papacy and its prerogatives, like Protestants do. Nor does claiming that a particular claimant (or claimants) to the papacy is (are) illegitimate constitute a heresy. So the most he could claim, is that Traditionalists are schismatic. However, that charge won't stick either. 

According to theologian Szal, "Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state." (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, [1948], pg 2; Emphasis mine).  We have many good reasons to outright deny, not just suspect, the validity of Bergoglio's election. (Not to mention Roncalli to Ratzinger). 

Private Interpretation?

The most common reason Traditionalists are wrongfully called "Protestants" is because we use "private judgement" with the papacy like Protestants use private judgement with the Bible. A notorious "recognize and resist" (R&R) bugbear states: Sedevacantism "judges" the pope. As a procedural matter the R&R is correct, "The First See is judged by no one" as Canon 1556 of the 1917 Code clearly states. As explained by canonist Cappello, "Immunity of the Roman Pontiff. 'The First See is judged by no one.' (Canon 1556). This concerns the Apostolic See or the Roman Pontiff who by the divine law itself enjoys full and absolute immunity." (See Summa Juris Canonici 3:19.) 

However, a pope who becomes a manifest heretic loses his office by DIVINE LAW, and an apostate, like Bergoglio, cannot attain the office. This is the teaching of all pre-Vatican II canonists and theologians. (To name but a few, Van Noort, Coronata, Dorsch, Iragui, Prümmer, Regatillo, Salaverri, and Zubizarreta).  Sedevacantists depose no one, we just recognize a fact that has already happened.

Who are you to judge something heretical?

Another objection frequently advanced is that no matter what the alleged "pope" does, it's not really heresy. For example, JP II kissed the Koran, and Bergoglio was praying with Jews to show respect and try and convert them. Ah, no. Vatican II to which Montini (Paul VI) to Bergoglio (Francis) adhere, is full of heresy. What does Vatican II really teach about false non-Christian religions? In Nostra Aetate, para. #2, we read:

Thus, in Hinduism men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an unspent fruitfulness of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek release from the anguish of our condition through ascetical practices or deep meditation or a loving, trusting flight toward God. Buddhism in its multiple forms acknowledges the radical insufficiency of this shifting world. It teaches a path by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, can either reach a state of absolute freedom or attain supreme enlightenment by their own efforts or by higher assistance.

Both of these false, pagan religions are based on the HERESY of pantheism, i.e., the false doctrine that the universe and God are one and the same substance. This contradicts the INFALLIBLE teaching of the Vatican Council of 1870:

CANON 3. If anyone says that God and all things possess one and the same substance and essence: let him be anathema.

There is no "loving, trusting flight towards" the True God which is denied by pantheism. 

However, the root of all the Modernist heresy in Vatican II--from which all the others derive, directly or indirectly--is the false ecclesiology. Lumen Gentium para. #8:

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Savior, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth" This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

Always, from 33AD until November 21, 1964, it was dogma that the Church of Christ was identical to the Roman Catholic Church. The new ecclesiology teaches there is a "Church of Christ" not identical to the RC Church, but "subsists" there in its fulness because She has all the "elements" of the Church of Christ. However, the Church of Christ can subsist in other sects (more or less) according to how many "elements of truth" they possess. To have all the elements is best, but to have just some is OK too and leads to salvation. Hence, Nostra Aetate can praise the "elements of truth" in Buddhism and Hinduism.  The end result: universalism--all are saved regardless of religion. 

More proof--and drawing necessary conclusions

Vatican II and its "popes" teach contrary to everything before:

Compare:

Wojtyla (JPII):

All the baptized are in Christ's Church. (Ut Unum Sint, para. #42).

Pope Pius XII:

Only those are really to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith and who have not had the misfortune of withdrawing from the body or for grave faults been cut off by legitimate authority. (Mystici Corporis, para. #22). 

Note to "Darth:" Which one is the truth?

Compare:

Vatican II:

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (Lumen Gentium, #15).

Pope Leo XIII:

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.

(Satis Cognitum, para. #9).

Note to "Darth:" Which one is the truth? 

I could literally multiply these examples much more, but this suffices to show that Traditional and Modernist (Vatican II) understanding of the nature of the Church are contradictory. Both can be false but both cannot be true. 

Therefore, we can draw one of three conclusions:

1. Post-Vatican II and Pre-Vatican II are both FALSE.

This is the position of the Eastern Heterodox. The Church is not Indefectible. You are now the heretic and unable to defend the Faith.

2. Post-Vatican II is correct and Pre-Vatican II was wrong and/or the "meanings of things changed over time"

This is the position of the Modernists. Christ allowed His Church be be wrong or not possess "the fullness of truth" until Vatican II.

3. Pre-Vatican II is correct and Post-Vatican II is false.

 Despite appearances to the contrary, Vatican II was not a legitimate Ecumenical Council, nor were Roncalli through Francis real popes. They either fell from office or never attained the papacy by the profession of heresy as a private theologian. Result? The Church did not defect and the Gates of Hell have not prevailed. The Vatican II sect is a heretical, man-made religion, and the One True Church continues with Traditionalists.  Welcome to sedevacantism.

Does it sound farfetched? Not if you know the teaching of the Church.  

According to theologian Berry, "The prophesies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition of the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church." (See Berry,  The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise , [1927], pg.119; Emphasis in original). It should also be noted that the Vatican II "popes" are not "antipopes." An antipope is one whom is elected in opposition to a true pope as a rival claimant (See A Concise Catholic Dictionary, [1943], pg. 36). Roncalli to Bergoglio are "false popes."

Ergo, sedevacantists are not Protestant.

Addendum II: Real Problems with Make-Believe

To My Readers: Never did I even remotely suspect the vituperation I would receive as a result of this post. I have received an incredible number of comments, most of which I cannot publish due to the use of profanity directed at me. When I was growing up here in New York City, there was a saying; "He was so angry, you would think I killed his mother." That expression was used when someone got very upset over something trivial. 

If FRPs are "only games" you would think those who disagree would say something along the lines of "This is silly. It's only a game. Write on other topics, not games." (or words similar). Instead, there has been a non-stop onslaught unlike anything I had before. Even Feeneyites seem level-headed and calm by comparison. If these are mostly the kind of people who play D&D, there is indeed something seriously wrong. Those claiming to be "Catholic" should be able to express themselves without profanity and without ad hominem invectives.  

One less  histrionic objector (no profanity but boorish nevertheless), going by the moniker "Physiologus" (hereinafter "P"), has a "blog" of sorts (he only has three posts for all of 2024 so far), and made his recent post to attempt a refutation of mine. You would think of all the issues upon which one could write, he chooses to defend D&D. This Addendum shall be my last word on the matter, as I respond to P.  

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

P's post may be read here: physiologus11.wordpress.com/2024/06/18/reply-to-introibo-regarding-dd/

1. Are FRPs addictive?

P writes:

Of the many problem I see with Introibo’s critique the first is the claim that “FRP games are addictive, and many people will play for hours on end.” They’re not addictive. You will not suffer from withdrawal, you will not get the shakes, you will not risk death if you stop engaging with them. There’s no FRP addiction, there’s no porn addiction, there’s no gambling addiction, there’s no social media addiction – those are habits. Every habit, good or bad, causes discomfort when broken. It is a modern fad to view every undesired attachment as an addiction. D&D is not heroin.

Reply: P doesn't understand what an addiction is or thinks he knows better than those trained in studies of the brain. If P means to suggest that people are responsible for their addictions and the actions that emanate from same, he is correct. If he is suggesting that you need to suffer from withdrawal like a heroin addict, P is sadly mistaken. He clearly states there is no porn addiction. 

First, an addiction is defined as follows: "A person with an addiction uses a substance, or engages in a behavior, for which the rewarding effects provide a compelling incentive to repeat the activity, despite detrimental consequences. Addiction may involve the use of substances such as alcohol, inhalants, opioids, cocaine, and nicotine, or behaviors such as gambling." 

(See psychologytoday.com/us/basics/addiction). 

A study by Simone Kuhn and Jurgen Gallinat, "Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated with Pornography Consumption: The Brain on Porn," JAMA Psychiatry 71, no.7 (July 2014) came up with incredible findings concerning porn's effects on the brain. Other studies show porn's effects on emotional health, sexual violence, and marriage (there were other factors as well). For the full article on the brain, 

See http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/1874574 .

Various studies show:

• When researchers compared the brain scans of porn users to non-users, those who used porn had a dulled reward center.
• When the reward center is dulled, the person doesn't feel dopamine's effects like they used to do. This means that in order to get the same excitement as before, porn users must resort to more hard-core material.
• Since porn addiction goes hand in glove with Internet addiction, such people have less gray matter in several important areas of the brain, such as the frontal lobes, the striatum, and the insula. These areas help people with self-control, prioritizing, and feeling empathy; when gray matter lessens, so do these important functions.

The work I cited above states, " A representative Swedish study on adolescent boys has shown that boys with daily consumption showed more interest in deviant and illegal types of pornography and more frequently reported the wish to actualize what was seen in real life." However, P knows better. There's no addiction to porn or anything else but drugs, and no one would ever act on a fantasy, right?

2. Possibility and Probability.

P writes:

Whilst the previous problem is only peripherally related to the subject of discussion the next point is my main problem with Introibo’s argument. ‘The issue is to what extent a “crossover” effect may occur…’ “May” occur. The whole essay is in this style: “it may occur”; “it can be incorporated”; “can begin to influence…”; “could affect the lives…”; “…have the potential…”; “Players may want to further study the occult…” It’s not that it will affect you, but it may. Of course if you get into a car it may cause an accident. What is the actual level of risk? Without showing a serious danger this is just pointless fearmongering.

Reply: Let me put it another way. P states on his X account that he uses tobacco. Here's the statistics on smoking and dangers to health:

Estimates show smoking increases the risk:

• For coronary heart disease by 2 to 4 times
• For stroke by 2 to 4 times
• Of men developing lung cancer by 25 times

(See https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/index.htm#:~:text=Estimates%20show%20smoking%20increases%20the,by%202%20to%204%20times&text=For%20stroke%20by%202%20to%204%20times&text=Of%20men%20developing%20lung%20cancer%20by%2025%20times). 

Does this mean P will (God forbid) get one of these horrible diseases/conditions if he smokes? NO! I grew up near a lady who smoked 3 packs of cigarettes everyday from age 21 until her death at age 82. How did she die? She tripped and split her head open on concrete, dying from blood loss. 

However, is it probable that smoking will give you a serious health issue? Yes. Is that probability enough that someone should not smoke? Yes. It is possible to be in a car accident, it is probable to have one or more health issues from smoking. Prudent people act on that which is more probable than not. In D&D we are dealing with the occult and pagan worldview and themes. The occult explosion is deadly to the soul. Due to the deadly nature of such, one should stay away. After all, the life of the soul is more important than the life of the body. 

Our Lord said, "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, fear the one who can destroy both soul and body in Hell." (St. Matthew 10:28).  If P considers this "fearmongering" there should be more of it.

3. Does D&D promote worship of false gods, rape and worse?

P writes, "That being said, D&D evolved from wargaming and has specific written rules for fighting or stealth. I know nothing about it having specific rules for rape. I looked up the Player’s Handbook and see rules for how long a torch burns and how much space it illuminates, the same for a lantern, how fast characters can run in different conditions, a chapter on negotiation, how much damage falling down a pit does, the monetary system, etc. I don’t see a chapter on rape or other perversions imagination can conjure. I would like Introibo to show where exactly does D&D “sanction fantasy about murder, rape, and sacrificing to false gods.”

Reply:  Both dungeon masters and players are told, "No fantasy world is complete without the gods, mighty deities who influence the fates of men and move mortals about like chesspieces in their obscure games of power.... They [the gods] are one of the Dungeon Master's most important tools in his or her shaping of events. The gods serve an important purpose for the players as well. Serving a deity is a significant part of AD & D [Advanced Dungeons & Dragons], and all player characters should have a patron god. Alignment assumes its full importance when tied to the worship of a deity" (See James M. Ward and Robert J. Kuntz, Deities and Demigods: Cyclopedia of Gods and Heroes From Myth and Legion, ed., Lawrence Chica, Lake Geneva, WI: TSR Games, [1980], pg. 37). 

Got that, P? As to rape, I was very much surrounded by the D&D craze in the 1980s. I knew several players who couldn't get girlfriends and would rape in the game. They bragged about how "fun it was" to imagine rape. Lest P complain this is mere anecdotal evidence, a simple perusal of the Internet would have produced the following results:

WARNING! The link is disturbing. Reader discretion advised. 

https://www.vice.com/en/article/qbeev7/notallroleplayers-a-history-of-rapey-dungeon-masters

How about the D&D book, The Book of Vile Darkness?

"The Book of Vile Darkness was named after a powerful artifact players could find in Dungeons & Dragons. The real-life version of the book gave rules for things like alcohol and drug addiction, cannibalism, mutilation, sacrifice, and sexual fetishes. The intention was for the DM to be able to go to extremes with their villains, rather than relying on the cookie-cutter definition of evil present in the Player's Handbook. The book also gave advice on running games with evil characters, though this generally won't be to everyone's' tastes, as it can lead to some nasty and selfish behavior on the part of the players." (See https://screenrant.com/dungeons-dragons-books-vile-darkness-exalted-deeds-dnd/; Emphasis mine). 

How's that P? Remember, you claim to be the "expert" and said I'm talking complete nonsense.

Finally, P discusses scenarios and asks, can a Catholic play Satan, or kids play cops and robbers? 

In cops and robbers there are firm rules of good and evil. You could play the devil in The Passion of the Christ, because he is defeated by Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross, but not in the TV show Lucifer, where he is a "charming good guy who got a bad rep." 

Summary and Conclusion

• P's contention that porn and other addictions don't exist only "habits"--proven wrong by science. D&D like the Internet itself, can be addictive
• Having contact with occult, amoral D&D creates a probability of interaction with the occult--a matter so deadly you should avoid it at all costs
• I have cited where worship of false gods and even rules for alcohol and drug addiction, cannibalism, mutilation, sacrifice, and sexual fetishes are intended 
• Role playing good vs. evil can be good if in proper context, evil if not

P obviously is clueless as to the real danger of D&D and other FPRs I am open to the possibility of  a genuine Christian FRP, but I know of none. I hope for his own mental, physical and spiritual health, he quits D&D as well as tobacco. 

 Rejoinder

I will not add another Addendum, but I just wanted to show the continued cluelessness of P who attempted another "rebuttal" on his "blog"--meaning he used 50% of all his posts this year on D&D! See the citation to his blog above.---Introibo

1. Habitual nonsense about addiction.

P disagrees with the scientific consensus on addiction. There is almost no unanimity on anything in science, only consensus. Accordingly, " Behavioral science experts believe that all entities capable of stimulating a person can be addictive; and whenever a habit changes into an obligation, it can be considered as an addiction. Researchers also believe that there are a number of similarities as well as some differences between drug addiction and behavioral addiction diagnostic symptoms." (See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3354400; Emphasis mine).

Furthermore, many FRPs are moving online. This makes it worse. Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD) has passed scientific scrutiny to the point of being included in the DSM. Can the tabletop version become addictive? There is not enough evidence at this time, hence no brain studies, as in the case of porn, which is a much bigger problem. Why risk it? 

"Addiction to gaming is described in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR), which is used by mental health professionals to diagnose mental disorders. In the DSM-5-TR, the condition is referred to as Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD)"

(See https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/internet-gaming#:~:text=Addiction%20to%20gaming%20is%20described,Disorder%20(IGD)(1): Emphasis mine).

You can therefore have an addiction that has no physiological withdrawal problems, unlike heroin. It is treated in a different way.  

The fact that P disagrees is no more relevant than the "science" of the Flat Earth Society on the shape of our planet.

2. Quantifying the Spiritual?

There are books in D&D on demons, books containing spell casting, and more. It makes the player aware of occult phrases, rituals, and encourages people to investigate the occult with actual occult books recommended. This increases the chance that people (especially the young) will investigate the occult and become involved with it. When it comes to your soul, any increase in its exposure to evil is unacceptable. There is also the real possibility of opening the door to the demonic. In fact, many psychics and mediums (such as Erika Gabriel) recommend the use of the fantasy imagination to help foster psychic development and actual spirit contact--a point I already made in this post.

Moreover, P's attempt to vindicate the evil in various D&D books is without merit. He quotes The Book of Vile Darkness: "The darker the shadow of evil, the brighter the light of good. The more horrible the villain, the greater the hero. If you are interested in adding the truly horrific to your game as something for the player characters (PCs) to vanquish, then this book is for you."(Emphasis mine) OK, so you can have murder, cannibalism, and sexual fetishes, as long as the hero wins. Thinking about these things is healthy and moral? 

P's citations prove my point--such things are so vile and occult they must be avoided.  

The "reasoning" of the D&D book for horrid evil to be employed is the same claptrap used to defend horror movies. A colleague of mine walked out on a screening of an small independent horror movie when the villain forced a teenage boy to rape his own mother at gun point. Yet, since the good guy wins, it justifies that perversion to be seen and/or thought about? 

3. I didn't have impure thoughts, it was my character!

P thinks there's a distinction between the player and the character. So if someone were to imagine adultery with the woman next door, but his fantasy is about someone else having relations with her, that's not sinful? If during the game someone says, "I call up demon X" who really said that? News flash: The character is an extension of the player. The demon may just take you up on the offer.

P's protest that D&D could be played morally fails miserably. I'm open to the possibility of an acceptable FRP, but D&D will not be one. The Book of Vile Darkness, has people hearing and imagining great evils and it was intended for such. The Book of Demons describes no less than 85 specific demons. How is perseverating on such evil made good? The "good guy wins"? Please.

By the logical extension, we could make The Satanic Bible good by taking out the bad stuff and replacing it with things that are good. Is that still  The Satanic Bible ?

4. Moralizing with the Daughter of Darkness.

P thinks I deserved the invectives people heaped upon me for this post. I wonder if he realizes that these were comments I could not publish because of the multiple obscenities. I was called four letter words and some even cursed out my family as well as me.  Do you think that's an overreaction, P? I'm more convinced than ever that those who play such games and display such behavior (while claiming to be "Catholic") proves something is seriously wrong with those who play FRPs.

Out of Christian charity, I told "Daughter of Wolves" on X that D&D was occult and she should not expose her children to such. I also told her that the Vatican II sect was just that; a sect. P thinks this is wrong. If P is Traditionalist as he claims, then he too agrees she belongs to a sect--The Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church. 

I did not mention how evil this woman is in calling herself a "conservative Catholic." On her timeline she:

• admits to using marijuana (as a homeschooling mom of three kids)
• brags about her "hourglass figure" of "36, 27, 38" and how her husband loves her going out in public showing off her "bare arms" and "bare legs"

Do you see anything wrong with this, P? Do you think that's setting a bad example or being a "good Catholic mother"? Do you think maybe she could use someone trying to convert her and (at least) get her away from occult influences that can also afflict her children?

5. The Danger of Even the Possibility of Occult Involvement.

I have shown evil and occult elements pervade the D&D books. It is there. It also encourages people, with citations to actual books, to investigate the occult.

According to theologian Slater: "It is well to bear in mind a remark which St. Thomas Aquinas makes after St. Augustine, that the devil wishes to excite among men a greater curiosity about occult matters 'so that being implicated in these observances, they may become more curious and get themselves more entangled in the manifold snares of pernicious error." (See A Manual of Moral Theology, 1:144 [1925]; Emphasis mine).  That alone condemns FRPs and D&D. 

Here is what is proven:

1. D&D has books that expose people (the young and impressionable among them) to occult rituals, themes, and verbiage. The books even cite occult books for the DM and players to investigate.

2. The occult is mortally sinful (necromancy, divination, etc.) 

3. Players are more likely by virtue of facts 1 &2 to investigate the occult by curiosity, if nothing else. D&D also uses fantasy imagination that could open a doorway for demons to enter a person's life.

4. As theologian Slater teaches, this is exactly what Satan wants to get people entangled in "pernicious error."

5. Therefore, D&D is to be avoided. 

P will have to prove that #s 1-4 are incorrect or that #5 does not logically follow from 1-4.

I find it odd that P claims he doesn't play D&D yet devotes so much time and energy to defending it. After all, if it is a harmless game, and people stop playing it to do something else, what real harm ensues? If P wants to make a third post (a majority of all he wrote this year) go ahead. His blog blather is just that. I'll heed the words of Scripture: "Talk not much with a fool, and go not with him that hath no sense." (Sirach 22:14). 

Holy Is His Name

 

To My Readers: This week's guest poster, John Gregory, tells us about the awe and reverence all should have for the Name of God, especially in this age where God's Name is used more as a "curse word" when people are angry than in prayer and with the great respect it commands. Please feel free to comment as usual. If you have a specific question or comment for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week. 

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

Holy Is His Name

By John Gregory

His name was called Jesus, which was called by the angel, 

before he was conceived in the womb (St. Luke 2: 21)

We shall be rewarded if we bless, honor and reverence the Name of the Lord.  What shall be the case if we curse, dishonor or treat His Most Holy Name with contempt?  The question answers itself.  Punishment will need to be inflicted upon us.  I have taught my children well that they should not get into bad habits, in the first place so as to avoid having to overcome them and dealing with the inevitable punishments that await them in this and or the next life.  Consider the man who as a child grew up in a neighborhood where all his “friends” used the Lord’s Name in Vain regularly.  The example rubs off and he eventually falls into the habit himself.  By the grace of God, he with much effort eventually overcomes the habit.  This he does in part by saying “God bless America” rather than what used to follow the first word in that phrase.  For decades he never uttered the phrase again.  Then one day the person closest to him, thereby the one who can have the most positive or negative effect on him, betrayed him in the worst possible ways.  The man the utters a tirade of bad language and uses the Lord’s Name in Vain once again.  

Now the poor soul finds himself in the predicament where it becomes a moral impossibility to stop the habit again.  For his last state has become worse than the first and it would have been better for him not to have converted to the ways of God and strayed again.  This sounds dire, but for those of good will nothing is impossible with God, and He will grant the extraordinary graces, now needed to overcome the habit if the person strives as best he can to overcome it, asking the prayers from others and begging God to help him.  The point is that there are many reasons not to purposely try to anger others.  Not just because it is wrong to do so in and of itself.  But because a person can ultimately be damned because of it.  No small thing.  It is enough to be responsible for our own sins!

Have you noticed how the Ave and Pater start out praising our Lady and our Lord before they petition them?  Not a coincidence.  In prayer our first duty is to honor Our Lord’s Most Holy Name.  Let us see what the Catechism of Trent [CoT] has to say about this:

“Hallowed be thy name”

WHY THIS PETITION IS PLACED FIRST

What we are to ask of God and in what order, the Master and Lord of all has Himself taught and commanded.  For prayer is the ambassador and interpreter of our thoughts and desires; and consequently we pray well and properly when the order of our petitions follows the order in which the things sought are desirable.  

Now, genuine charity tells us to direct our whole soul and all our affections to God, for He alone being the one supreme Good, it is but reasonable that we love Him with superior and singular love.  On the other hand, God cannot be loved from the heart and above all things else, unless we prefer His honor and glory to all things created.  For all the good that we or others possess, all that in any way bears the name of good, comes from Him, and is therefore inferior to Him, the sovereign Good. 

Hence, that our prayers may be made with due order, our Saviour has placed this Petition regarding the sovereign Good at the head of all the other Petitions of the Lord’s Prayer, thus showing us that before asking the things necessary for ourselves or for others, we ought to ask those that appertain to God’s honor, and to manifest and make known to Him the affections and desires of our hearts in this regard.  Acting thus, we shall be faithful to the claims and rules of charity, which teaches us to love God more than ourselves and to ask, in the first place, those things we desire on His account, and next, those things we desire on our own.

We also use Our Lord’s Name in Vain by uttering the name of Jesus in anger or in a causal or other disrespectful way.  Perhaps if we catch ourselves doing this we can add “please help me” after uttering His Name aloud in anger and then say an Ave, Pater and Gloria afterwards, turning a negative into a positive as it were.  This is why we do not let our children watch TV or have phones, Our Lord’s sacred Name is blasphemed everywhere and all the time.  When the disrespectful use of Our Lord’s Name enters the head, it is not too far from the mouth.  This is especially the case with children.  Parents.  Take heed.  You will have to render a strict account.  Please do something about this now, while you still can.  Don’t find out what the repercussions will be the hard way.  Let us turn to the Catechism once again to reaffirm what has been discussed:

“Jesus”

Jesus is the proper name of the God-man and signifies Savior: a name given Him not accidentally, or by the judgment or will of man, but by the counsel and command of God.  For the Angel announced to Mary His mother: Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. (Luke 1: 31) He afterwards not only commanded Joseph, who was espoused to the Virgin, to call the child by that name, but also declared the reason why He should be so called. Joseph, son of David, said the Angel, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.  And she shall bring forth a son and thou shalt call his name Jesus.  For he shall save his people from their sins. (St. Matthew 1: 20)

In the Sacred Scriptures we meet with many who were called by this name.  So, for example, was called the son of Nave, who succeeded Moses, and, by special privilege denied to Moses, conducted into the land of promise the people whom Moses had delivered from Egypt; and also the son of Josedech, the priest. But how much more appropriate it is to call by this name our Savior, who gave light, liberty and salvation, not to one people only, but to all men, of all ages—to men oppressed, not by famine, or Egyptian or Babylonian bondage, but sitting in the shadow of death and fettered by the galling chains of sin and of the devil—who purchased for them a right to the inheritance of heaven and reconciled them to God the Father!  In those men who were designated by the same name we see foreshadowed Christ the Lord, by whom the blessings just enumerated were poured out on the human race.

All other names which according to prophecy were to be given by divine appointment to the Son of God, are comprised in this one name Jesus; for while they partially signified the salvation which He was to bestow upon us, this name included the force and meaning of all human salvation.

As the priest, the alter Christus turns the wrath of almighty God away from the people, primarily through the Mass, what does the use of Jesus Christ’s Most Holy Name, when used in vain, and especially by priests do?

“Christ”

To the name Jesus is added that of Christ, which signifies the anointed. This name is expressive of honor and office, and is not peculiar to one thing only, but common to many; for in the Old Law priests and kings, whom God, on account of the dignity of their office, commanded to be anointed, were called christs.  For priests commend the people to God by unceasing prayer, offer sacrifice to Him, and turn away His wrath from mankind.  Kings are entrusted with the government of the people; and to them innocence and the punishment of guilt.  As, therefore, both these functions seem to represent the majesty of God on earth, those who were appointed to the royal or sacerdotal office were anointed with oil.  Furthermore, since Prophets, as the interpreters and ambassadors of the immortal God, have unfolded to us the secrets of heaven and by salutary precepts and the prediction of future events have exhorted to amendment of life, it was customary to anoint them also.

“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” (Exodus 20: 7) [CoT]

As an aside, the Protestants list the Commandments differently than the Catholics.  They split the first two Commandments into three and combine the ninth and tenth into one.  This way they make the part about not making graven images stand out so they can accuse Catholics of worshipping statues, and they lump together the coveting of another’s wife and the coveting of his material goods as if they are the same species of sin when they are quite different, as coveting another’s wife can be linked more with the sixth Commandment – Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery.  

It is important to understand that if you are in such a bad habit of using the Lord’s Name in Vain that it comes out of your mouth without any premeditation you are not guilty of a mortal sin in this instance, but you are guilty of forming the habit in the first place, and it is incumbent upon you to do all in your power to get out of that habit.  Sometimes we are about to use the Lord’s Name in Vain without malice of forethought, but for one instant before it comes out, we are given the grace to refrain, but say it anyway in our anger.  Woe to us guilty of this crime, this is anything but doing all in our power to overcome this blasphemy.  If we are serious about eliminating this habit, and we must be, we must avoid the occasions where we are most likely to commit it.  Apart from drinking, these occasions are often those which we are most fond of, whether it be playing chess, and making a blunder that loses the game, or watching football, such as when your team loses on a bad call or turnover.  We break the first commandment when we love something more than we love God.  If we cannot give up watching our favorite team for the love God, guess what we love more than God.  Yes, a woke-driven, greedy corporation.

WHY THIS COMMANDMENT IS DISTINCT FROM THE FIRST

The second Commandment of the divine law is necessarily comprised in the first, which commands us to worship God in piety and holiness.  For he who requires that honor be paid him, also requires that he be spoken of with reverence, and must forbid the contrary, as is clearly shown by these words of the Lord in Malachy: The son honoureth the father, and the servant his master; if then I be a father, where is my honour? (Mal 1: 6)

However, on account of the importance of the obligation, God wished to make the law, which commands His own divine and most holy name to be honored, a distinct Commandment, expressed in the clearest and simplest terms. [CoT]

In addition to the offensive and common phrases that combine the Most Holy Name of God with the use of the word “damn” in anger, and the use of the Holy Name of Jesus disrespectfully (which are in seemingly every movie in existence, and it is as if Hollywood makes it mandate to insert these blasphemies into each movie) is the common “Oh my God” phrase.  I doubt I am the only one sick and tired of hearing this phrase from everyone, everywhere, all the time. Do I need to remind the parents again to keep their children away from the cinema.  There is nothing good there, there is almost without exception something in each and every movie inserted to rape and warp the innocence of our youth.  They, more than anyone, copy what they hear.  The “oh my God” phrase is not just an innocent phrase, unless it is part of a legitimate prayer.  It is using the Lord’s Name in Vain.  It is the commonization and belittling of the Name above all Names, the source of all existence, the most Holy and Pure, Goodness Itself.

Blasphemy is contumely against God and is directly opposed to the desire of worshiping God.  It is primarily a sin of the tongue, but blasphemous thoughts, writing, actions are equally offensive to God.  Direct blasphemy takes place when contumelious speech is used intentionally to dishonor God; it is indirect blasphemy, if God’s dishonor is foreseen but not intended.  There is no specific difference between these two kinds of blasphemy.  

Heretical blasphemy contains expressions of heresy, such as the denial of God’s mercy, providence, justice, and this is an added sin against faith.  Imprecatory [a spoken curse] blasphemy contains imprecations against God that evil may come to Him.  Blasphemy is sometimes directed against God in His Person or Attributes, sometimes against His Saints, Angels, men, universe—in their relations to Him. (See theologian Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol. II, [1935]).

To make sure we have a proper understanding of blasphemy and of who and to what extent one may be guilty of it, let take a glance at the work of Father Walter Ferrell:

Further attacks on the foundation of hope: Blasphemy

The angry man who spouts blasphemies is not necessarily guilty of sin; ordinarily he is only the victim of a limited vocabulary.  Though she is struggling for emphasis, not expletive, the vivacious young lady swaying on the subway strap and shouting the name of God above all the roar of the train is suffering from the same limitation.  These two are not at all in the same class as the university professor who calmly assures us that God is a symbol.  His is a sin, but a dry, dusty, languid sin, with little heart in it.  The complete blasphemer is seen in the atheist who viciously attacks the notion that God is good, that God is omnipotent, that He is the provider of His children in this world.  Here we have the sin which stands at the peak of all the sins of infidelity, a sin which consists in verbally insulting God.

By it we attribute to God something which does not belong to Him, or deny Him something that is His divine prerogative.  In its full stupidity it outstrips all sins against the moral virtues, even sins of despair and presumption against the virtue of Hope; it gives place reluctantly, only to that supreme sin which is hatred of God.  When blasphemy proceeds from hatred of God itself, then blasphemy is the supreme sin.

However brief it be, however softly whispered, there is nothing small about the smallest of blasphemies; for just one, any one, destroys our union with God.  In the human order an insulting word or a moment of infidelity does not necessarily destroy the love that binds a man and a woman together; but then that love is a natural thing, with roots deep in nature.  The love that binds us to God is not at all natural; its roots are not in nature.  From our side it must always be a frail, engrafted thing; in cherishing our union with God we must tread fearfully, carefully with the fear and caution looking out, not towards God, but towards ourselves.

An eavesdropper at the keyhole of the gate of heaven would listen in vain for God and His friends to hurl insults.  Blasphemy has no place in heaven, and no place among the friends of God on earth.  Men do of course blaspheme.  The devils too blaspheme, not with lips but with their affections.  Once the damned souls in hell are reunited to their bodies the uproar in hell will really commence, and one of the constant activities in the social life of hell will be blasphemy.  There is a terrible significance to this truth, for it indicates that there is no limit to the sins and wickedness of hell; in fact, that very wickedness is a part of the punishment of hell.  If nothing else would, this truth shows us that there is no joy in sin for if there were, the devils could have none of it. (See A Companion to the Summa, by theologian Walter Farrell [1940]).

I used to wonder why they treated Job’s wife telling Job to “bless” God and die as something reprehensible.  The below gives us an idea that she told him to “curse” God and die.   

Still more enormous is the guilt of those who, with impure and defiled lips, dare to curse or blaspheme the holy name of God—that name which is to be blessed and praised above measure by all creatures, or even the names of the Saints who reign with Him in glory.  So atrocious and horrible is this crime that the Sacred Scriptures, sometimes when speaking of blasphemy use the word blessing. [CoT]

We cannot let you go without a summation of the Angelic Doctor’s teaching on this issue found in Monsignor Paul J. Glenn’s work, A Tour Of The Summa:

Blasphemy is a direct disparaging of the divine goodness. It is therefore a sin in conflict with the faith. For he who has the faith confesses the divine goodness. Blasphemy, by its genus or the general essential class of sins to which it belongs, is always a mortal sin. We have seen that unbelief is the greatest of sins against faith. Blasphemy is an emphatic form of unbelief. Hence, in speaking of sins against faith, blasphemy is often called the worst of sins. The wicked in hell detest the divine goodness and justice, and thus they blaspheme. It is believable that, after the resurrection of the body at general judgment, human beings in hell will utter their blasphemies audibly.

Pastoral Note

The pastor will earnestly exhort the blasphemer to consider what an outrage he is guilty of in the sight of God, if his blasphemy is deliberate.  For such deliberate blasphemies the Council of Lateran bade the confessor to impose a most severe penance.  If, however, the blasphemies are indeliberate, the penitent will be advised to keep away from occasions of such scandal to others, to repeat the ‘Glory be to the Father” as often as he has blasphemed during the day, to determine seriously each day to diminish the number of his blasphemies that day, not to expect to get rid of an inveterate [long established, unlikely to change] habit in a moment, to curb his temper, for anger is usually the cause of impatient blasphemy, and to avoid, as far as possible, the company of those who are the occasion of his fits of temper.  In addition to these helps, he will, of course, be exhorted to go frequently to confession and Holy Communion, and to be faithful to his daily prayers.  By using such supernatural means, he may confidently hope to overcome the habit. (Moral and Pastoral Theology, Volume II, cited above). 

Lastly, let us get some advice from the great Sainted Doctor of the Church, Saint Alphonsus Liguori (Sermons from Saint Alphonsus Liguori):

Tell me, O blasphemers, if there by any of you present, what benefit do you derive from your accursed blasphemies?  You do not receive pleasure from them.  Bellarmine says, that blasphemy is a sin which produces no pleasure.  You derive no profit from them; for, as I have already said, your blasphemies are the cause of your poverty and wretchedness.  You derive no honor from them; your fellow blasphemers have a horror of your blasphemies, and call you a mouth of Hell.  Tell me, then, why you blaspheme.  Father, the habit which I have contracted is the cause of my blasphemies.  But, can this habit excuse you before God?  If a son beat his father, and say to him: My father, have compassion on me; for I have contracted a habit of beating you; would the father take pity on him?  You say, that you blaspheme through the anger caused by your children, your wife, or your master.  Your wife or your master put you into a passion, and you take revenge on the saints.  What injury have the saints done you?  They intercede before God in your behalf, and you blaspheme them.  But the Devil tempts me at that time.  

If the Devil tempts you, follow the example of a certain young man, who, when tempted to blaspheme, went for advice to the Abbot Pemene.  The abbot told him, that as often as the Devil tempted him to this sin, his answer should be: Why should I blaspheme that God who has created me, and bestowed so many benefits upon me?  I will for ever praise and bless him.  The young man followed the advice, and Satan ceased to tempt him.  When you are excited to anger, can you speak nothing but blasphemies?  Say on such occasions: Accursed sin, I hate thee; Lord assist me; Mary, obtain for me the gift of patience.  And if you have hitherto contracted the abominable habit of blaspheming, renew every morning, as soon as you rise, the resolution of doing violence to yourself to abstain from all blasphemies during the day: and then say three Aves to most holy Mary, that she may obtain for you the grace to resist every temptation by which you shall be assailed.

Conclusion

Blessed be God.  Blessed be His Holy Name.  Blessed be Jesus Christ, true God and true Man.  Blessed by the Name of Jesus.  Blessed be His Most Sacred Heart.    Blessed be Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar.  Blessed be the great Mother of God, Mary most Holy.  Blessed be her Holy and Immaculate Conception.  Blessed be her Glorious Assumption.  Blessed be the name of Mary, Virgin and Mother.  Blessed be Saint Joseph, her most chaste spouse.  Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints. May the heart of Jesus, in the Most Blessed Sacrament, be praised, adored, and loved with grateful affection, at every moment, in all the tabernacles of the world, even to the end of time.  Admirable is the Name of God!  Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!