Catholic Candle note: Previously, we saw how the program of feminism is, at its core, the same as the program of Satan and the Marxists. Read the analysis of this program, which begins here:
➢ and which proceeds through a total of seven parts, ending with this seventh part:
Because we are Soldiers of Christ, we must fight feminism like we fight Satan and Marxism, because they all attack Christ the King and His Reign. Below is part 3, the final part of Catholic Candle’s article explaining an effective way to fight the evils of feminism. The first part of this article was published in the November 2022 issue of Catholic Candle and is also available here:
The second part was published in December 2022 and is also available here:
How to Fight Feminism – Part 3
In this article’s part 2, we saw how the feminists follow the Marxists (and Satan) by hating – and seeking to destroy – monogamy because they reject the goodness and the importance of monogamy, which are shown by reason, by the Natural Law, and by God.
In that part 2, we saw how the feminists and Marxists hate the special friendship and special fidelity which exists between good spouses. The feminists and Marxists seek to destroy monogamy because they desire to promote disharmony, hatred, and division between persons (as is shown in the seven-part article linked above).
Polygamy (the destruction of monogamy) fosters jealousy, distrust, disharmony, hatred, and a divisive spirit. By contrast, monogamy fosters unity, harmony, trust, generosity, and love. A man and his wife (but especially the wife) have a singular focus on pleasing the other. As St. Paul teaches:
[S]he that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
1 Corinthians, 7:34.
But if there could be multiple so-called “husbands” or so-called “wives”, this good and natural focus on each pleasing the other above all other people, could not exist.
Further, polygamy causes jealousy as the wife compares how her husband treats her compared to his other so-called “wife” (or “wives”). Foreseeably, one of the two women would think that their supposedly joint “husband” treats his “other wife” better than he treats her or that he treats his “other wife’s” children better than he treats her children. Also, she would often think, because of the way her husband acts, looks, and what he says, that he loves the other so-called “wife” more than her, etc. The same would apply among the men, if there could be multiple so-called “husbands”.
Moreover, destroying monogamy is extremely disruptive to the family and throws its God-given order into disarray. A husband is the head of his home, by the Natural Law and by God’s revealed law. The wife is the heart of her home for the same reasons. Without monogamy, a family would be disordered and would resemble a monster – with multiple heads or multiple hearts.
Also, with multiple so-called “husbands” there would often be life-long doubt concerning who the father of the mother’s child is. This would cause many problems.
So how can we defend monogamy and fight the feminists’ and Marxists’ attack on it?
We now see better the importance of defending monogamy against the enemies of God and society. But how do we do that?
First, we must promote monogamy! We must praise and honor monogamy and the unique fidelity proper to spouses. We should do this especially by praising couples who have faithfully fulfilled their marriage vows for a long time. For example, at weddings there is a customary dance where the announcer calls off the dance floor “every couple married for less than one day” (viz., the newlyweds), then, a little later, “every couple married for less than one year”; then less than five years, and so on until the last couple is alone on the dance floor. Then everyone gives them a big round of applause. This is a fitting way to honor monogamous fidelity in marriage and years of wedded bliss. It is a way to honor that accomplishment itself, even when the couple is unknown to most people in the room.
Importance of Not Treating False “Marriages” as if they were True Marriages
To defend monogamy, we must avoid condoning the false so-called “marriages” and so-called “spouses” of those who are divorced and “remarried”. Such “remarriage” is an abject failure, a public mortal sin, and an attack on monogamy.
Even if a close relative is involved in this tragedy, the false “spouse” should not be accepted, given gifts, or allowed in the homes of Catholics. The false “spouse” should be treated like a pariah for three reasons:
➢ The false “spouse” would be included solely because of the supposed “marriage”, so treating the false “spouse” like a real spouse would be lying by our actions;
➢ Treating the false “spouse” like a real spouse is a scandal and bad example; and
➢ Refusing to treat the false “spouse” like a real spouse can be a help to causing the false “spouses” to make their lives right with God, with the Catholic Church, with reason, and with the Natural Law.
To treat an adulterous relationship as if it were a faithful marriage, constitutes a lie not only for their relatives but also for anyone else who “plays along” with the charade. This lie, in a way, is no less false than for some so-called “transgender woman” (who is really a biological man) to be treated as if he were really a girl. In both situations, we would be violating reason and flaunting God’s law, showing that (sinful) human respect is more important to us than the Truth and the love of God.
Concerning the Careful Reserve that Spouses Should Exhibit toward Others of the Opposite Sex
To protect monogamy and the precious fidelity between spouses, each spouse should exhibit due reserve and appropriate distance around other persons of the opposite sex. The general standard (for reserve and distance) is no less than (but maybe more than) the minimum that one’s spouse would desire, even if that spouse is not present. When one of two persons is married, then any flirting or “free” manners between them disrespects monogamy, marriage, and his (her) spouse.
Although this is always true, such reserve and appropriate distance is not the same in all circumstances, e.g., the distance a married man would keep from an aged, widowed, neighbor lady, would not be the same as the sisterly reserve he would show to his sister-in-law, and both of these would be much different than the even greater reserve he would show to the friendly young lady behind the counter at the coffee shop that he patronizes regularly. Such due reserve is part of honoring, protecting, and defending monogamy. Obviously, this decorum should not only be practiced by married persons but also by unmarried persons in relation to married persons of the opposite sex.
The Feminist’s Attack on Monogamy by Promoting Impurity
An important reason why feminists (and Marxists) hate monogamy is because they hate purity. Free license to indulge every urge of passion results in destroying a person’s purity, personality, and character. Kate Millet and other founders of the National Organization of Women (NOW) singled out destruction of purity as their main method of destroying monogamy.
Again (as quoted earlier in this article), here is the chant with which they opened their feminist meetings:
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?” …
“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!”, they resounded.
The Marxists and other servants of Satan follow the same program as the feminists do, promoting impurity, especially unnatural impurity.
The trained Marxists who lead Black Lives Matter (BLM) also promote unnatural impurity and they view (and attack) purity as the enemy. Here is one way BLM stated its position:
We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).
So, BLM is saying here that, when they gather, their intent is “liberation” from the normalcy of the Natural Law. Here is one way that St. Paul described this filthy, shameless (so-called) “lifestyle”:
God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
Romans, 1:26-27 (emphasis added).
It is not by accident that feminists (especially their leaders) live lives of unnatural impurity. Feminism leads to that (so-called) “lifestyle”. As Ti-Grace Atkinson (board member and president of its New York City chapter of NOW) explained:
Feminism is the theory; lesbianism is the practice.
In other words, although gullible and naïve persons don’t understand this fact, feminism is the explanation (or worldview), which leads to, results in, and explains unnatural impurity.
Because the feminist movement leads to this life of unnatural vice, feminism seeks to break down women’s and girls’ modesty, purity, reserve, and natural bashfulness by continually exposing them to shamelessness, promiscuity, eroticism, and continual contact with filth (impurity) of all kinds.
Thus, among the 45 goals which the communists listed as means to take over the United States, these three goals (#24 – #26) seek to destroy the nation’s purity:
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, and healthy.”
One reason that the feminists, Marxists, and the so-called “racial justice” movement all promote impurity (especially unnatural vice) is because they follow Satan’s program. Satan is like a “vulture” in the spiritual realm seeking to “devour” the spiritual “carrion”, i.e., souls which are dead and are reeking with the “stench” of mortal sin.
But there is a further reason these groups promote the vilest impurities. These sins of impurity (especially unnatural impurity) more than other sins, most effectively dull the mind, weaken the will, and destroy the character. Satan, the Marxists, and the feminists strongly promote unnatural impurity because a society is defenseless to their cultural revolution when people are weak-willed and dull-witted because they are steeped in the vice of impurity.
This is obvious. But let us look at this truth a little deeper. If a man is impure, he is weak and is a slave to lust. By contrast, purity is strong. Here is how St. Augustine refers to this fact, while addressing himself to God:
You formed the living soul of the faithful by bringing their passions into control under the strength of continence.
The Confessions of St. Augustine, Bk. 13, ch.34.
Because continence and purity are strong, Satan, the Marxists, and the feminists know that their cultural revolution requires that they bring society to the weakness of incontinence and impurity.
St. Paul teaches the same thing as St. Augustine, viz., that purity is strong, teaching us this and giving us this crucial example:
I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection.
1 Corinthians, 9:27.
Impurity constitutes being conquered by our body (i.e., passions). Using St. Paul’s words, impurity is a means by which our bodily passions bring US into subjection. Plainly, we cannot fight exterior enemies (e.g., the feminists and Marxists) if we ourselves are slaves and have already been brought into subjection by our interior enemies (i.e., disorderly passions). Thus, our enemies know with satanic cunning, that our subjection to impurity is crucial to their subjugating us in a cultural revolution.
What can we do to fight the feminists’ promotion of impurity?
As explained in part 1 in this article, to fight feminism, we must see what the feminists particularly attack and then we must concentrate our defenses there. So, we see (above) that they are attacking purity in order to attack monogamy because purity is the safeguard of monogamy. Therefore, (as already intimated above), we must defend monogamy, by promoting and defending the safeguards of monogamy, viz., the related virtues of purity, modesty, custody of our eyes, custody of our thoughts, and custody of our imagination. We know this not only though our Catholic Faith but also through the Natural Law (e.g., as masterfully set out in Aristotle’s treatise called The Nichomachean Ethics).
We must not be ashamed that our standard of modesty is different from (and stricter than) the world’s standard and is also much firmer than those who call themselves “Traditional Catholics” but who partially follow the fashions of the world. For example, their women wear trousers (which are men’s clothing) like the world does, but they wear what they would euphemistically call “modest”, “women’s” trousers.
Faithful and informed Traditional Catholics must dress differently than the world, as well as act differently. As one of the more senior members of the Catholic Candle Team emphasized to his own children when he was raising them: “You are going to dress differently because you are different” (emphasis in his voice).
In our pagan and corrupt times, if our attire does not proclaim that we are different – very different – then we are not dressing the way we should. This point is sometimes made in a slightly amusing way, as follows: “When it becomes a criminal offense to be Catholic, may there be enough evidence to convict you.”
Thus, we see that the virtue of purity plays a key role in the fight against the feminists’ cultural revolution. (Of course, purity plays a key role in saving our own souls too, as we remember that Our Lady revealed to us at Fatima that more people go to Hell because of sins of impurity than for any other reason.)
Part of the essential purity we must have and must promote among others, is the strong custody of our eyes, custody of our thoughts, and custody of our imagination. On the most basic level, these custodies are essential for avoiding lust (which, as we know, is one of the seven deadly sins). As Our Lord teaches us in the Sermon on the Mount about the lack of these three custodies:
Whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.
St. Matthew’s Gospel, 5:28.
But, looking deeper, we see that these three custodies are mandatory not only to avoid mortal sins of lust, but also to avoid other unnecessary occasions of sin.
God made women the more beautiful sex and made men attracted to them. Even aside from a man looking upon a woman with lust, if he looks upon her to simply and chastely admire her beauty, is that a good idea? Well, in some circumstances it is, but not in others. For example, it would usually be a good idea for a man to admire the beauty of his own wife. This would be a natural help in his fulfilling his vocation.
Also, it could be a good idea for an unmarried man whom God is calling to the married vocation to chastely admire an unmarried lady’s beauty. God made her beautiful for such situations, as an aid to both of them fulfilling their vocations.
But if he is already married, or if she is, then what business does he have to be giving himself over to admiring her? It is not an aid to his vocation but is rather a potential and unnecessary occasion of sin, and a hindrance.
Similarly, if an unmarried woman is called to the married vocation and she makes herself attractive to (unmarried) men, in a modest manner, this would be an aspect of her doing her part to fulfill her vocation. But if she is seeking to be admired for her beauty by married men or if she is a married women seeking to be admired by men who are not her husband, then that is a potential and unnecessary occasion of sin, and a hindrance – at least unless she has good reason to do so – perhaps, to honor her husband by her modest display of her beauty when it is reasonable that she does so – e.g., among their friends and acquaintances. Although we need not treat this point further now, she (and all of us, at all times) must act according to reason and not mere vainglory.
We should keep Our Lord’s admonishment in mind;
[F]or every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the Day of Judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
St. Matthew’s Gospel, 12:36-37.
The same admonition applies to idle thoughts and actions too.
Thus, we see that we must pray daily for purity and encourage others to pray for purity. We should praise purity and seek to make others esteem this great and strong virtue. The same is true for modesty and the three custodies.
We must be devoted to Our Lady, the Mother Most Pure and Mother Most Chaste, striving to make others devoted to her also.
We should be devoted to St. Joseph, who is the Lily of Purity, invoked in his litany as “Joseph Most Chaste” and “Chaste Guardian of Virgins”. We can profitably use a St. Joseph cord of purity (which is a traditional sacramental and devotion).
We should foster purity by fasting and by performing other mortifications generously and regularly.
From all of the foregoing, we see that we should:
➢ Promote and defend modesty, strong custody of our eyes, custody of our thoughts and custody of our imagination, in order to:
➢ Promote and defend the virtue of purity, in order to:
➢ Promote and defend monogamy, in order to:
➢ Promote and defend patriarchal authority, in order to:
➢ Promote and defend the family, in order to:
➢ Defend society against the feminist/Marxist cultural revolution.
Let us give ourselves wholly to this fight for Christ the King and His Mother Most Pure!
 Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives, found here: (emphasis added).
 Quoted from accessed on June 4, 2020 (emphasis added).
Beginning in about June 2020, conservatives noticed the BLM credo and its overt Marxism. They began quoting it to warn the public about the encroaching Marxism throughout the Western World. Sometime, in approximately September 2020, BLM removed this credo and substituted a vaguer and more generic one in its place. Here is an archive copy of BLM’s Marxist credo we quote here.
 Quoted here: (quoting these words of Ti-Grace Atkinson from a pamphlet called “Lesbianism and Feminism”, published by the Chicago Women’s Liberation Union in 1971, and then re-published in a book to be used in a college course. This book is called Feminism and Sexuality: A Reader, by Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott, Columbia University Press, 1996. The quote is found on p.282.
 Quoted from the Congressional Record – Appendix, pp. A34-A35, Current Communist Goals, Extension of Remarks of Hon. A. S. Herlong, Jr. of Florida in the House of Representatives, Thursday, January 10, 1963.
 Here is how St. Thomas explains this truth:
Intemperance [including impurity] is most disgraceful … because it is most repugnant to man’s glory … inasmuch as the pleasures which are the matter of intemperance dim the light of reason from which all the glory and beauty of virtue arises: wherefore these pleasures are described as being most slavish.
Summa, IIa IIae, Q142, a.4 (emphasis added).
 Here is how St. Thomas explains this truth:
Intemperance [including impurity] is most disgraceful … because it is most repugnant to human excellence, since it is about pleasures common to us and the lower animals, as stated above (Summa, IIa IIae, Q.141, a.3). Wherefore it is written (Psalm 48:21): “Man, when he was in honor, did not understand: he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made like to them.”
Summa, IIa IIae, Q142, a.4.
 A person has continence when he performs the actions of a particular virtue (e.g., temperance when eating), before he has the virtue itself – which is the habit of doing those good actions such as eating temperately. In this sense, continence is not a virtue but it is the path to acquiring the virtue. Summa, IIa IIae, Q.155, a.1. (In a different sense not discussed here, “continence” can be called a virtue in the sense of the celibacy of a monk, etc.)
When a person has continence, then he performs good actions despite a struggle occurring in his soul as he fights the unruly demands of his passions. By contrast, when the person has the virtue itself, then his passions are conformed to reason and there is no more disorder in his passion which had previously fought his reason. As a result, a person who possesses the virtue of temperance no longer has an interior struggle. His passions have been so conformed with reason that they no longer seek to eat to excess and so his performance of virtuous acts is sweet, easy, and more meritorious.
 Like continence, incontinence is a person’s struggle with his disorderly passions except that the incontinent man yields to the demands of his unruly passions. This is a sin and causes a weakening in the man, leading toward vice, which is the habit of committing the sin.