To your comment of "antisspxers", if you have ever read anything on Cathinfo, we are not "anti-sspxers"; to the contrary, we are very "pro-sspxers" of what Archbishop Lefebvre had stood for and do fight against this new-change of orientation in the N-SSPX.  

Those who are more interested in baseball than in the reason why priests are threatened and expelled - how did they get that way?

There's clearly a lot of weariness out there.  Liberal-minded people either don't realize or don't care what is at stake.

For those out there that are new to this sspx.org article for "public consumption", do not be too surprised that these "outings" are new to such "amusements"; they have been going on for quite a while.  

This is only the first time that "officially" sspx.org, Fr. Rostand, is presenting this as something "wholesome and mainstream".  Fr. Peter Scott was adamantly against these kinds of "amusements" when he was the District Superior.

To add, I know first hand that 4-SSPX priests went on an "outing" that ended up in going to the beach -I was with them- unknowingly that this was a place we were stopping at; and begrudgingly I was very upset!

Additionally, 2-SSPX priests went "quietly" in the evening to a baseball game without cassocks and returned without cassocks "blissful" -I saw them go off and come back- and heard all about the "stadium games" the next day.  One of those priests had on his computer a screen saver depicting a "baseball pro" (not a Catholic saint); as with, he had a television in his room in which he used to watch the "big stadium games" on.  I had seen the "defining blue glow" through his window and him screaming "ball game shouting" when there was an "outstanding" play.

Unfortunately, there are many more stories that I know of over the years. This kind of "amusement" is not new; it is just now paraded as "wholesome and mainstream" to do from the leaders of the SSPX...just like other habits that go on in the conciliar church

It seems in this "new-deal" the SSPX leaders are trying to do with conciliar Rome, when they want to join them, they unfortunately begin to act like them.

It is also true that it is not important on what is on the "outside" of a person; it is what goes on in the "inside" that is important.  However, the "outside" type of amusements do reveal the "inside" thoughts and behaviors of an individual.

Yes for a religious it is very sad that these "sensual and inordinate" things are still going on in the SSPX...

Our enemies, the world, the flesh, and the devil  are always waging war on our souls.  We have to fight these enemies until we die, and the attacks are relentless.
I remember reading  about Jacinta of Fatima's last days.  When she was in the hospital she said.  "Priests must be very pure, and not concern themselves with the things of the world."  If priests remain hidden to the things of the world, the devil's attacks against them would diminish somewhat.  Their only concern  should be  for souls.
Recreational activities should be  prudently chosen.  I think these SSPX were way out of character.  Reminds me of stories of what Vatican 11 nuns did after Vatican 11 when they began throwing off their habits and adapting to the world.
"No  man can serve 2 masters"

LOL.  Now its questionable that a priest has a pro athlete as his background and not a saint.


You antisspxers are grasping at straws.  Its comical and sad.

We're not against the SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre. We're against the Neo-SSPX of Bishop Fellay (aka Opus Fellay).

For some reason the The Bells of St. Mary's came to mind.  A pre Vatican II version of Sister Act.

How do you know he cares more about baseball than priestly duties?

Didn't say that.

Seems to me most of these people are indifferent to what's going on in the SSPX, or approving it.

So what are the priorities of such priests?

Three things to those who believe it is cute for priests to join the crowds at the amusement park for "gaiety" like this:

1.) It does create a near occasion of sin for them and for us as well when we know it is likely our eyes may fall on an exhibit of skin or other perverse activity we ordinarily might not see.  Accordingly, such activity should be avoided and substituted with other past times less potentially compromising.

2.) The senior priests entertaining visiting seminarians have even more culpability here.  Woe to anyone who causes another to stumble.

Consider Luke 17:1-2

17 And he said to his disciples: It is impossible that scandals should not come: but woe to him through whom they come.

2 It were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little ones.



3.) Posting this event on the SSPX USA website during lent is extremely poor judgment and yet another sign the leadership is in a modernist bent tail spin.  I personally an insulted the leadership has such little regard for those who have supported the Society.  They really think we want to see this ? It appears to me there a subtle attempt to cause Traditional Catholic's, especially those who don't support a cave in to Rome, to ease up a bit and not be so firm in our views?    

I personally am intolerant of the "slow boil" attempts by the SSPX leadership to change me or you toward modernism.  It is offensive to me.  

Indeed and there is no doubt the SSPX is sliding. It has to be said there are a variety of people, who attend the SSPX. I don't agree with SSPX families sending their children to local schools or a woman putting on a trousers when she gets home from Mass.

What I quite like about priests like Fr Morgan is he is good when it comes to how women should dress and act. He gets criticised for it.

Jansenism  has been mentioned but can't be used an excuse for a woman to become a "party animal" or for priests to ride the roller coaster.

It might be perceived as a bit of craic as we say in Ireland but they are priests.

A few years ago I was at a pro-life street stall with Youth Defence and what really impressed me was the girls who attend the SSPX. They were modestly dressed. Dresses not trousers.  It was good example to the women present, who were wearing trousers.

I'm not suggesting the women in trousers were tramps but it goes back to example.

Same for the priests and seminarians. I am all for recreation but is an amusement park a suitable place for priests and seminarians.

There will be criticism for those bordering on puritanical.