Adulterating Marriage

 As Antipope Francis attempts to allow the divorced and "remarried" (i.e. adulterers) to receive their "communion," I believe there are machinations brewing for far more than the denial of the indissolubility of marriage. As any of my regular readers know, I'm not one given to wild-eyed conspiracy theories, or sensationalism. However, I will attempt to demonstrate that the logic of the Vatican II sect is leading to places unthinkable even a few short years ago.

The Second Vatican Council imposes a variation of the doctrine on marriage contrary to the Catholic Church's constant teaching.In the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes (hereinafter GS), the married state is referred to as "the intimate partnership of life and love which...has been established by the Creator..." (GS# 48), whose proper end is procreation:

"By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory" (GS #48).

Note that it does not find its raison d'etre, or "reason for being" in the procreation and education of children, but its "crown." This leads one to believe that the end of the state of matrimony is mutual perfection of the spouses, that is, the secondary end becomes the first, since the true end (the procreative one), becomes secondary because it is proposed as a consequence (or "crowning glory") on the Modernist view of marriage.

  Furthermore, GS states:
 "Many of our contemporaries, too, have a high regard for true love between husband and wife as manifested in the worthy customs of various times and peoples. Married love is an eminently human love because it is an affection between two persons rooted in the will...; it can enrich the sentiments of the spirit and their physical expression with a unique dignity and ennoble them as the special elements and signs of the friendship proper to marriage." (GS # 49)

Here, the robber council places the secondary end of marriage (mutual love and support) on par with the primary end (procreation).  "Married love" (the conjugal act) is justified solely through corporeal manifestation and not by virtue of procreative value first and foremost. Pope Pius XI taught in Casti Conubii that married love is properly viewed as a natural act committed to procreation and, therefore, allowed in relation to the first end of marriage, (which is the begetting of children). It is not used for satisfaction and pleasure itself, understood  as the secondary end of marriage, and limited by its primary end.

 In an article for the National Catholic (sic) Reporter, writer and sodomite supporter Robert McClory offers this bit of logic from his piece entitled, "Why Church Disdain for Gay Marriage is Dead Wrong":

"When the subject of Christian marriage was taken up by the bishops at the Second Vatican Council in its document on 'The Church in the Modern World,' (that's the English title for GS--Introibo) they made a point of not repeating the old formula. In fact, they first discussed mutual self-giving and sharing as essential to marriage and only after spoke of its role in increasing and multiplying the human family. The bishops decided not to use any primary or secondary terminology in the document, and just to make the matter clear, insisted that 'procreation does not make the other ends of marriage of less account' and that marriage was 'not instituted solely for procreation' "

 The online edition of People Magazine  reporting on  Antipope Francis' synod on the family had this to write:
"On Monday, Catholic bishops showed unprecedented openness to accepting the real lives of many Catholics today, saying gays had gifts to offer the church and should be accepted and that there were "positive" aspects to a couple living together without being married."

Do you see the writing on the wall?

Mr. McClory does when he writes, " Gay Catholic (sic) couples are daily fulfilling that central requirement of Christian marriage; love and fidelity."  While it's true that not every normal couple is fecund due to age (e.g. widows who remarry, etc) or due to medical concerns, they are reproductive in principle and reflect the male-female model established by God for the human race. Apples are edible in principle, even if this particular apple in my hand is rotten and can't be eaten. Rocks are never edible by nature.

 Francis admits of a "gay mafia" in the Vatican. The sodomites they admitted to the seminaries in the late 1960s going forward are the "bishops" and "cardinals" of the second decade in the 21st century. Adulterers receiving the invalid communion of the Vatican II sect will seem unremarkable the day we witness an Antipope Adam "marrying"  "Cardinal" Steve.

Question Authority

  This is the kick-off of the big Synod in Rome (rightly spelled "Sin-od" by my friends at Novus Ordo Watch) where Antipope Francis is putting Catholic Faith and Morals up for grabs. Francis (Mr. Jorge Bergoglio) is meeting to have an "open discussion" about issues where many "Catholics" (i.e. members of the Vatican II sect) disagree with True Magisterial teaching on many issues; especially the use of artificial contraception and giving their "communion" to the divorced and remarried (i.e. adulterers).

  In an article published at theweekly.com entitled "Pope Francis wants Catholics to Doubt the Church. He's Right," writer Kyle Cupp opines:

" Would it be weird to say that the Catholic Church under Pope Francis has encouraged a sense of uncertainty about God?

After all, this is an institution that has devoted centuries to hammering out and polishing an authoritative system of doctrines concerning who God is and what God expects. It claims to have been founded by Jesus Christ and to be guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit. It has warned of eternal damnation if its authority and precepts are ignored or rejected. In other words: If Catholicism is true, you don't want to be in doubt about its teachings. But by giving the impression that longstanding teachings of the faith might significantly change, Pope Francis and other church leaders have invited just such doubt.

No surprise, Catholic writers have expressed concern. Responding to reports that the church might stop denying communion to Catholics in permanently adulterous marriages, Ross Douthat wonders what the appropriate response of Catholics should be to such changes. Michael Brendan Dougherty, mindful of the church's turbulent history, fully expects that a pope or governing council in the church will eventually issue a policy flatly contradicting church teaching — and he believes that most Catholics will be wholly unprepared for it. In such conditions, some among the faithful would doubt the church itself. Lasting heresy or disbelief might take root and grow in this soil.

According to Catholicism, the core doctrines of the church express absolute truth and therefore cannot be altered, but paradoxically this premise doesn't preclude changes to its teaching. In the parlance of the church, it only means that a previously proposed understanding wasn't really unchangeable doctrine. Still, a big deal. By merely entertaining doctrinal development, the church entices believers to question its authority and the exact content of its faith.

In fact, Pope Francis has explicitly endorsed doubt in the life of faith. In a 2013 interview published in America Magazine, the pontiff said that the space where one finds and meets God must include an area of uncertainty. For him, to say that you have met God with total certainty or that you have the answers to all questions is a sign that God is not with you. Be uncertain, he counsels. Let go of exaggerated doctrinal "security." A devout faith must be an uncertain faith:

'The risk in seeking and finding God in all things, then, is the willingness to explain too much, to say with human certainty and arrogance: 'God is here.' We will find only a god that fits our measure. The correct attitude is that of St. Augustine: seek God to find him, and find God to keep searching for God forever.'"

 Mr. Cupp, and of course, Mr. Bergoglio, have it all wrong. Cupp is correct that Bergoglio wants to eviscerate whatever remains of Catholicism in his sect. Bergoglio is wrong and takes St. Augustine out of context. Just because God is infinite does not mean that we can't know very definite Truths about Him which He reveals to us. We may not be able to fully comprehend them (e.g. the Trinity), but they are absolutely veridical. Both are wrong insofar as that whatever the Church holds out as Truth cannot change; the contrary view is that of Modernism.

Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane (1907), CONDEMNED proposition number 58:

  Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him.

Condemned proposition numbers 64 & 65:

Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted.

Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism

It's scary how this has come to pass. Remember too, that Bergoglio is the one who infamously stated, "Who am I to judge?' (In reference to sodomites). My prediction for the Sin-od is that they will formally adopt the antipope's "Jiminy Cricket" view of morals, "Let your conscience be your guide." If you ever watched the Disney movie classic Pinocchio,you'll remember that before the title character goes out to face the world, his friend, Jiminy Cricket advises him to just let his conscience be his guide. Ironically, after receiving this advice, Pinocchio gets into all sorts of trouble, suggesting that his conscience wasn't such a great guide after all. It's a rightly formed conscience that matters. One formed by the Truths revealed by Christ and His One True Church. This is the only way we can have full and accurate morals.

 But now, Antipope Francis will be attempting to find creative ways to sin. He will flaunt God's unchanging moral code--at the very least by making it seem that you can "discuss it" as though it were possible to change. Not only is this blasphemous in and of itself, it gives people the scandalous idea that morality is uncertain, relative, and even unknowable. Soon we may very well have the Vatican II sect officially sanction Jiminy Cricket ethics as "Pope Pinocchio's" nose grows longer and longer with each relativistic and Modernistic lie he tells his followers. Most ironically, the man who wants us to question the authority of the Church has no authority. Question Francis.

Beheading Ecumenism

Right in the middle of America's heartland, Oklahoma, we witnessed a recent convert to Islam behead a 54 year-old woman with whom he used to work. According to one news agency:

 ''Alton Nolen, ...aka Jah'Keem Yisrael, after attempting to convert a fellow female worker at Vaughn Foods, and after being fired--beheaded that female co-worker followed by attempting to murder and behead another woman co-worker. The CEO of Vaughn Foods shot Yisrael before he encored his grisly beheading act.

One look at Yisrael's Facebook page features a "Who's Who" adulation of international terrorists from al Qaeda to ICIS. He highlighted one headless victim on his Facebook page with praise to Allah. According to Islam anyone who disagrees with that religion deserves to lose his or her head and hands''

The True Church of Christ has always fought against ''...the darkness of idolatry and of Islamism...'' as the Consecration prayer to the Sacred Heart of Jesus taught until the defection of the hierarchy. Not only did Antipope John XXIII (now ''St.'') remove that phrase from the prayer, the heretical document Nostra Aetate had this to say:

"3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their desserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom"

  There is no peace and freedom apart from the King of Peace, Jesus Christ, and His One True Church. The Modernist Vatican II sect rejects this premise. Antipope Francis takes it even further in his "encyclical" Evangelii Gaudium :

"253. In order to sustain dialogue with Islam, suitable training is essential for all involved, not only so that they can be solidly and joyfully grounded in their own identity, but so that they can also acknowledge the values of others, appreciate the concerns underlying their demands and shed light on shared beliefs. We Christians should embrace with affection and respect Muslim immigrants to our countries in the same way that we hope and ask to be received and respected in countries of Islamic tradition. I ask and I humbly entreat those countries to grant Christians freedom to worship and to practice their faith, in light of the freedom which followers of Islam enjoy in Western countries! Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence (Emphasis mine)."

    Frankie would need to explain away the expert testimony of  Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes: “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.

 Furthermore, I'd like to see his exegesis on texts, such as the following, from the Koran:

4:89: “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”

 The Vatican II sect refuses to see the fact that Islam is a false religion, a violent and Satanic creed, that brings terrorism to the world on behalf of their false god "Allah." They have softened the stance of formerly Catholic nations (and the world at large) against it in the name of heretical ecumenism. Islam breeds evil, and we have a decapitated woman right here in Oklahoma as the latest in an unending series of proof.

 As I once remarked; perhaps when the Grand Imam of the Islamic Republic of Italy starts issuing fatwas from the erstwhile Vatican City, the world will see the evil of Islam (and the ecumenism that made its victory possible) when it will then be too late. King St. Louis IX, Victor over the Saracens, how the world needs your prayers and protection as never before.

Be Moral (But Only In Moderation)

 I've written before about the Latin aphorism "In medio stat veritas," i.e. "In the middle is the truth." Many times problems arise from people clinging to one extreme position or the other, when the Truth is "in the middle." A case in point would be the Feeneyites (no Baptism of Desire) and the universalists ( virtually everyone gets Baptism of Desire). However, in our postmodern age of apostasy, the world will often paint the Truth as an "extreme" and only some politically correct version of "faith" and/or "morals" will be lauded as "moderate and reasonable," when in fact it is neither.

 Consider, if you will, how moral outrage is often expressed by the world in response to the acts of those overpaid, steroid-using men we call "professional athletes." Football player Ray Rice hits his wife and for days we hear moralizing about spousal abuse. Don't get me wrong, hitting your wife is wrong, but I've heard commentators speak of this incident as something worthy of capital punishment. "It's never permissible to hit a woman," one so-called "conservative commentator" intoned. Really? It's NEVER permissible? If a female drug addict comes up to me with a knife trying to stab me and take my money, I have no moral authority to hit her and save my life? The feminist crowd has made hitting a woman a moral outrage, no matter what the circumstances and you'd better agree with the PC crowd or be prepared to get treated as a pariah.

 In 2009,  former football player Steve McNair, a married father of four children, was found dead, along with his 20 year old mistress Jenny Kazemi. Kazemi had shot McNair dead, and then turned the gun on herself, because she was distraught that McNair apparently told her he would not leave his wife to marry her, contrary to what he had earlier led her to believe. Sportswriter Jason Whitlock criticized McNair not because he was having an affair, but because he spent so much time chasing a 20 year old waitress, he wasn't spending enough time with his children. Whitlock didn't want to condemn adultery because he didn't want to sound like "some sanctimonious moralizer." I bet it never occurred to Mr. Whitlock (or the vast majority of his readers) that in condemning being a lousy father and refusing to denounce adultery, he was, ipso facto, moralizing. Neglect of children is bad. Cheating on your spouse is OK. Hitting a woman is never permitted, even if your own life is at risk. These are the PC ethics of our postmodern age where what's moral is decided by what the "herd" thinks is chic to be frowned upon. In every other area, any absolute condemnation (usually involving sexual ethics) is considered "extreme."

 In the days before the Great Apostasy, there would have been a true pope and Magisterium to speak out on such issues and serve as our moral compass to Heaven. Now, the Vatican II sect fits right in with the world. Consider how the media is gushing over Antipope Francis' appointment of Mr. Blase Cupich as the new "archbishop" of Chicago because he is a "moderate." Why is he labeled a moderate you ask? According to the AP newswire:

" Bishop Blase Cupich has spoken out against same-sex marriage and against conservative hostility toward gay rights advocates. He has opposed abortion, while urging parishioners and priests to have patience, not disdain, for those who disagree. And he has criticized fellow U.S. bishops who threatened to shut down religious charities instead of pursuing a compromise with the White House over health care policies that go against Catholic teaching"

 Seems "reasonable" to those of the world and the followers of Vatican II. However, consider for a moment that Catholic teaching holds that abortion is murder, and homosexuality is unnatural and perverse. These same Modernists in the Vatican II sect condemn Pope Pius XII for his alleged lack of standing up against the Nazis. Their so-called "saint," John Paul II apologized for the inactivity and silence of many Catholics during the Holocaust on March 16, 1998. The Holocaust was wrong and must be actively opposed by Catholics because it was the taking of innocent human life. But, wait a minute, isn't abortion also the taking of innocent life? Isn't pedophilia, so rampant among the Vatican II clergy also unnatural vice? Let's see how the "moderate stance" of Cupich would read in the newswire of 1933 Germany:


" Bishop Blase Cupich has spoken out against pedophilia and against conservative hostility towards pedophilia-rights advocates. He has opposed the Holocaust, while urging parishioners and priests to have patience, not disdain, for those Nazis who disagree. And he has criticized fellow German bishops who threatened to shut down religious charities instead of pursuing a compromise with the Third Reich over the  health care policies of Dr. Mengele that go against Catholic teaching."

Still sound reasonable and moderate to you? Cupich will do all he can to advance the complete collapse of morals under the guise of avoiding "extremism." Their concept of moderation is what's really extreme.

Marrying The Culture of Perversity

 It has been widely reported that Antipope Francis will marry "cohabiting couples" (read: "people shacking up and living in sin"). Yes, people living in sin and giving public scandal should get married, but only after they separate and live chastely until the wedding. This recognizes the sacredness of the marital act. Frankie wants to be "welcoming," i.e. "come on in and we don't mind sin." The Vatican II sect apologists are attempting to spin it as an act of "mercy" and recognition that "no one is perfect." True mercy is fraternal correction, and while fully admitting that none but Christ and His Mother are perfect, we must nevertheless heed Our Lord's admonition to "Be thou therefore perfect, as also thy heavenly Father is perfect."                   (See St. Matthew 5:48)

 What I have not seen mentioned, is how the Antipope's actions once more try to conform Christ to the world and not vice-versa. He is implicitly giving his blessing to the heathen culture which degrades the marital act, and dignifies the cheapening of sex. Look no farther than pop culture to see how desensitized we've become to sexual sin. The world has instilled in people the "pleasure" of indulging in the forbidden without remorse, while appealing to Man's sinful nature. These ultimately lead to a perverse and deranged bondage that is contaminating society at large.

Hollywood is completely obsessed with sex. Even what used to be labeled as family entertainment is not safe. The animated film, The Road to El Dorado, featured the voice of actress Rosie Perez. When she finally saw her character, with a body far beyond that of a Playboy playmate, she was dumbfounded and recalled:

"I was surprised when I saw her. I even told [Dream Works partner] Jeffrey [Katzenberg], "Are you sure this is family programming?"

When filmmakers Rachel and Barak Goodman visited an Atlanta suburb to look into a surprising outbreak of syphilis among 13-17 year olds, they found that one of their main activities involved watching the Playboy Channel, then copying whatever they saw on the screen. Titling their documentary, The Last Children of Rockdale County, the film details the influence television had on the entire town of Rockdale and the carnage of diseases that ruled the day. How bad does shacking up seem in comparison to this vile situation? 

Actress Sharon Stone says she's "studied a myriad of religious philosophies, even Scientology. Ultimately I've come to the conclusion that I'm a Taoist Buddhist who believes in God." She takes her Eastern ideologies seriously. When she wanted to get pregnant, she performed an African fertility dance and sprinkled clover flowers and raspberry leaves on her bed. This was to no avail, yet when she finally adopted a boy, she named him Roan Joseph Bronstein - his first name is Celtic for seal, a magical animal in that mythology. She has been quoted as saying, "I don't believe in sex as sin, or sin in general," and it's not surprising since she has portrayed a lesbian murderer in the film Basic Instinct. 

Actress Michelle Pheiffer is on record as stating: "Fidelity is…not that important. Traditional marriage is very outdated. I don't think people should live together the rest of their lives suppressing frustrations." Yes, and that twisted idea goes along perfectly with studies that show "cohabiting couples" having a much higher divorce rate than those who do not live together prior to marriage since they have no shame and seek not to suppress sin ("frustrations"), even for a short time as penance before marriage.

 The Modernist Antipope Francis strikes again with more damage to Faith and Morals. Maybe they can film the event and call it Sex and The Eternal City. 

Luther's Triumph

“Brothers and sisters,Luther’s protest is over. Is yours?” So remarked an Anglican "bishop" at a meeting of Kenneth Copeland Ministries, a Protestant sect. Why is Luther's protest over? He is victorious over the counterfeit "Catholicism" of the Vatican II sect. Copeland himself remarked, "Heaven is thrilled over this…You know what is so thrilling to me? When we went into the ministry 47 years ago,this was impossible." The impossibility being spoken of was the Protestant "bishop's" wife converting to "Catholicism" because she realized she could be "Catholic, and Charismatic, and Evangelical, and Pentecostal, and it was absolutely accepted in the Catholic(sic) Church." Yes, in 1967, the nascent Vatican II sect was not yet ready for the "ecumenical apostasy" on the scale which it has reached today.

 "Pope" Francis should head a new UN-style “Organisation of United Religions”, or “United Religions”, to “combat violence in God’s name”, said former Israeli president, Shimon Peres this past week. The Vatican II sect is the perfect outfit for such a blasphemous endeavor. People may protest that "combating violence in God's Name" is a good thing. In fact, it's an evil worse than the violence. Thinking that you can come to God on your own terms apart from His One True Church is madness. Without the Catholic Faith it is impossible to please God, as the Council of Trent taught. Yet Antipope Francis hates the True Faith. He has proclaimed: "In this, we feel close even to all those men and women who, whilst not recognizing themselves belonging to any religious tradition, feel themselves nevertheless to be in search of truth, goodness and beauty, this truth, goodness and beauty of God, and who are our precious allies in efforts to defend the dignity of man, in building a peaceful coexistence among peoples and in guarding Creation carefully." (Emphasis mine). Got that? Your religious "tradition" doesn't matter.


 As Pope Pius XI taught in his great encyclical letter Mortalium Animos (1928): "All Christians, they add, should be as "one": for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. ... in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed....authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: "That they all may be one.... And there shall be one fold and one shepherd," with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not today exist....it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise?

 That was a true Pope's condemnation of ecumenism involving those who acknowledge Christ. Francis goes further by wanting ANY religious tradition or even NO religious tradition (atheists) to be in "communion" with his sect. Since, according to him, we all get to Heaven, it makes sense. (All except those of us in the One True Church go to Heaven!) If you think I exaggerate, the antipope said:

"In ideologies there is not Jesus: in his tenderness, his love, his meekness. And ideologies are rigid, always. Of every sign: rigid. And when a Christian becomes a disciple of the ideology, he has lost the faith: he is no longer a disciple of Jesus, he is a disciple of this attitude of thought… For this reason Jesus said to them: ‘You have taken away the key of knowledge.’ The knowledge of Jesus is transformed into an ideological and also moralistic knowledge, because these close the door with many requirements. The faith becomes ideology and ideology frightens, ideology chases away the people, distances, distances the people and distances of the Church of the people. But it is a serious illness, this of ideological Christians. It is an illness, but it is not new, eh?" To believe in the Truth ("ideology") makes you "ill" and not a true Christian!

  In 1517, the apostate priest Martin Luther, the founder of the false Protestant sects, claimed the authority of each individual to interpret the Scripture. Almost 500 years later, his ideological successor, the Modernist Jorge Bergoglio, proclaims that everyone has the right to believe anything or nothing. Contradictory propositions can all be reconciled "for the good of humanity," at the expense of right reason. It's going from Protestantism to Modernism to atheism, as our culture is riddled with moral and religious relativism which breeds indifference (at best) or unbelief (at worst). The "UN of Religions" is, by definition, "UN-Catholic." Pray that you may be spared from the evil that might be coming soon.

Covering All Bases

Just when you think it can't possibly get any more sacrilegious and downright crazy, the Vatican II sect is ready to prove you wrong. According to a report in the Washington Post:

"Fans who stream into the Navy Yard district before Nats (a professional baseball team--Introibo) games are now greeted with increasingly varied entertainment choices, from Yards Park for fresh air and views of the Anacostia River to the Fairgrounds for frat-rock music and adult refreshments to a variety of neighborhood restaurants and taverns, with more to come.

On Sunday afternoons this summer, they've had another option: a Catholic church service. Or, as the local St. Vincent de Paul church calls it, “Nats Mass.”

“For me, it was kind of a no-brainer,” said Rev. Andrew Royals, 34, a Montgomery County native who became the pastor at the South Capitol Street church about two years ago. “On game days we had thousands of people walking right in front of our church. I was like, ‘Well, I’m sure some of these people would like to go to church.’…And we thought there’s no reason people can’t do both.”


And thus, Nats Mass (sic) was launched in May, a noon service that runs about 40 or 45 minutes, getting attendees out the door in plenty of time for a 1:35 first pitch."

 According to the August 24th article, the church is breaking records, with fans attending in their teams baseball attire. "There are other things that make Nats Mass unique. Royals tries to keep the service a tad briefer than normal, so anxious fans don’t get distracted by the approaching gametime. And he will include references to baseball or to the Washington nine in his homilies – 'it makes it easy when you know that everyone has something in common even beyond our religion,' he said. Baseball 'kind of gives you an extra set of things that we can all relate to.'"

 To put things in perspective, the Vatican II sect feels that something more than the True Faith is necessary to have in common; the cult of idolizing overpaid and (in most cases) steroid-using athletes, whose only contribution to society is their own self-aggrandizement.  Moreover, they no longer have the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass--the Unbloody Sacrifice of the Cross---but have replaced it with a Modernist worship service that is so banal, that they need to get people to attend by dressing like slobs and having "theological discussions" regarding a profane sport to keep their attention.

 There is nothing wrong with playing in sports or watching them. (I do neither, but I'm a jiu-jitsu expert with 28 years professional training and an avid runner putting in approx. 100 miles a month. This I do for self-defense--which I also teach one night a week-- and for personal health). However, the CULT of sports is pervasive in our culture, and the Vatican II sect panders to it.

 The First Commandment does not say, "Thou shalt not be an atheist," but rather, "Thou shalt not have false gods before Me." Humanity is incurably God-centered. Whatever you put ahead of God, be it money, fame, drugs/alcohol, power, sex, your career, sports, or anything else, that becomes the false god to whom you pay homage. Ironically, the word "fan" is short for "fanatic," a word typically reserved for the religious, for whom the term is used pejoratively. For sports, the world sees the label as a badge of honor.

 Equally ironic, I think, is that Mr. Royals and his fellow Vatican II sect members are not getting their people to be fans of the only One Whom matters: Jesus Christ. Instead of having them come dressed up with jerseys of their false sports idols, why not have them dress reverently for Christ? Have them wear a Crucifix, and a medal of a saint; a real hero. They are sacramentals that can bring graces to their souls.

Adult and children’s minds are occupied, from early morning to late at night, as to what team is going to win. Their interest for these sports far exceeds their interest for their eternal soul's welfare. It is their daily subject, ask the teenager. With very few exceptions, they are better acquainted with the names of the various players than with the basic Truths of Faith. How about "homilies" (the former sermon) dedicated to preaching on Church Teaching?

People have been in riots when their team loses a big game. Fist fights break out if someone slights a player from the favorite team of another person. Why not encourage people to get outraged over abortuaries that murder innocent children, and fight over the blasphemies that the media turns out on a daily basis against Christ and basic Christian values?

 This will not happen because the Vatican II sect is NOT the Roman Catholic Church. It is up to us-- Traditionalists-- to become "fanatics" for what's left of Christ's One True Church and fight the good fight of the True Faith. St. Paul does make one sports analogy when under Divine Inspiration, he writes, "Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize."      (See 1 Corinthians 9:24).

 For the Vatican II sect, it's the bottom of the ninth, bases loaded, and the mighty Francis and his team of Modernists have struck out. Don't be stuck with these losers when Christ has had enough and tells them, "Game over."