Author: Catholic Candle

Lesson #12 First Exercise on Sin — The Triple Sin

Posted on by Catholic Candle

                    Mary’s School of Sanctity                   

Before introducing the material for the first exercise, it is important to know the general framework St. Ignatius uses for his meditations.  Also, it is important to note here that St. Ignatius intends that the exercitant has a scheduled time period for doing the meditations.  In the structure of an Ignatian retreat this is all worked out ahead of time and the exercitant simply follows the schedule.  If doing a “retreat” on one’s own, one can set up a schedule for himself.  However, if one is doing the Ignatian exercises as part of a routine of daily meditations, then one would set aside perhaps 25 minutes or a half hour for the meditation.  Toward the end of the time set aside, one could save at least five minutes for a colloquy [closing prayer].[1]

St. Ignatius’s Spiritual Exercises are basically a series of meditations set out in a particular order.  His series is the method he used to lead the soul on a path by which self-knowledge can be obtained as a means of acquiring humility.  St. Ignatius uses this method because he knows that once the soul, as the intended bride of Christ, knows herself better, she can then more perfectly dedicate herself to the loving service of God.  Consequently, he is teaching a sure way to sanctity.   

In general, each meditation in his Spiritual Exercises, in its turn, has a specified order.  St. Ignatius gives the subject matter of each meditation with a preparatory prayer, preludes, the principal points to consider, and suggests an appropriate colloquy.[2]

St. Ignatius has a preparatory prayer which he wishes every exercitant to use before every meditation.  It goes as follows:

I ask God Our Lord the grace that all my intentions, actions, and works may be directed purely to the service and praise of the Divine Majesty.

The preludes he gives are preliminary steps to get the exercitant ready for the meditation.  The preludes are supposed to prepare the exercitant for the mental prayer ahead.  It is in a way like preparing the soil for the planting.  In fact, he has the exercitant make a mental image in his mind which matches the topic selected for the meditation.  He calls this making of an image the first prelude.

Then, St. Ignatius usually has two or more additional preludes in each of his meditations.  He explains these at the beginning of each meditation.  His second prelude is usually a specific grace which he wants the exercitant to ask for.

Then, he sets forth the particular points that he wants the exercitant to consider.  Although he gives the points to consider, he certainly intends that if the exercitant finds his heart overflowing with things to say to God, by all means, the exercitant should stop the consideration of the points and use the inspiration given and simply talk to God.[3]   One should not worry about using all of the points for consideration because the main reason for the considerations is to foster the colloquy.

In general, one may think that the colloquy [prayer] would happen at the end of the time set aside for the meditation, but in reality, one finds that his heart is full and he longs to speak to God much sooner, so the colloquy often happens sooner. 

St. Ignatius intends that, if the exercitant has not found his heart pouring out to God at any time during the period set aside for the consideration of the points of the meditation, then he should stop making considerations and begin at once to make a colloquy.  As mentioned above there was a planned time set aside for the colloquy toward the end of the meditation time slot.  This colloquy is a prayer of thanksgiving, contrition, adoration, or petition.  

It is a good idea to read through the entire material for each meditation before actually beginning the meditation.  Now let us look at what St. Ignatius gives for the first exercise, and then we will go through it pondering on the crucial consequences of his material and how the consequences apply to our souls.

 

THE FIRST EXERCISE {The Triple Sin}

For this first exercise the usual preparatory prayer is used which is given above. 

The first meditation is on sin.  In this meditation the FIRST PRELUDE is the mental image.  Since this meditation is about sin, which is not visible, St. Ignatius says that:

the mental image will consist in imaging, and considering my soul imprisoned in its corruptible body, and my entire being in this vale of tears as an exile among brute beasts.  By entire being, I mean both body and soul."      

The SECOND PRELUDE is to ask God Our Lord for what I want and desire.  In this present meditation I shall ask for shame and confusion, for I see how any souls have been damned for a single mortal sin, and how often I have deserved to be damned eternally for the many sins I have committed.

The FIRST POINT will be to recall to memory the first sin, which was that of the angels, then to apply the understanding by considering this sin in detail, then the will by seeking to remember and understand all, so that I may be the more ashamed and confounded when I compare the one single sin of the angels to the many that I have committed.  Since they went to hell for one sin, how many times have I deserved it for my many sins.  I will recall to mind the sin of the angels, remembering that they were created in the state of grace, that they refused to make use of their freedom to offer reverence and obedience to their Creator and Lord, and so sinning through pride, they fell from grace into sin and were cast from heaven to hell.  In like manner my understanding is to be used to reason more in detail on the subject matter, and thereby move more deeply my affection through the use of my will.

The SECOND POINT is to employ the three powers of the soul to consider the sin of Adam and Eve.  Recall to mind how they did such long penance for their sin and what corruption fell upon the whole human race, causing so many to go to hell.  I say to recall to mind the second sin, that of our first parents.  Recall that after Adam had been created in the Plain of Damascus and placed in the earthly paradise, and Eve had been formed from his rib, they were forbidden to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, and eating it they committed sin.  After their sin, clothed in garments of skin and cast out of paradise, without the original justice which they had lost, they lived all their lives in much travail and great penance. 

The understanding is likewise to be used in considering the subject matter in greater detail and the will is to be employed as already explained.

The THIRD POINT is to recall to mind the third sin.  This is the particular sin of any person who went to hell because of one mortal sin.  Consider also the innumerable others who have gone to hell for fewer sins than I have committed.  I say consider the third particular sin.   Recall to mind the grievousness and malice of sin against our Creator and Lord.  Let the understanding consider how, in sinning and acting against Infinite Goodness, he has justly been condemned forever.  Close with acts of the will, as mentioned above.  (St. Ignatius is referring here to where he mentioned moving one’s affections more deeply through the use of the will.)

COLLOQUY.  Imagine Christ Our Lord before you, hanging upon the cross.  Speak with Him of how, being the Creator He then became man, and now, possessing eternal life, He submitted to temporal death to die for our sins.

Then I shall meditate upon myself and ask “What have I done for Christ? What am I now doing for Christ?  What ought I do for Christ?” As I see Him in this condition, hanging upon the cross, I shall meditate on the thoughts that come to my mind.

The colloquy is made properly by speaking as one friend speaks to another, or as a servant speaks to his master, now asking some favor, now accusing oneself for some wrong deed, or again, making known his affairs to Him and seeking His advice concerning them.  Conclude with the “Our Father.”

In order to firm up our resolution made in the meditation on the Principle and Foundation, namely to praise, revere, and to serve God faithfully, we must consider the gruesome reality of sin.  Sin is truly the opposite of serving God—it is the refusal to serve God.  The world does not take sin seriously and thinks it is nothing to worry about.  Of course the devil encourages this view of sin and wants us to see sin as no big problem.

St. Ignatius, with his meditation material about sin, is now giving us an opportunity to get a thorough knowledge of the malice of sin, a salutary sense of shame while grieving with heartfelt contrition for the sins we have committed, and to form a firm resolve to never commit sins.

St. Ignatius reminds us of our mortality by telling us to imagine our corruptible bodies which we will leave behind at death.  Our souls will go forth to meet our Judge and we will see clearly how we have treated Him.

 The consideration of the points:

I. The Sin of the Angels:

Let us consider how the angels, by nature, are far more perfect creatures than men.  They have no bodies.  They are pure spirits and have intellects and wills.  They have infused knowledge that God gave them when He created them.  Catholic tradition teaches that the angels were created and in the next instant they made their fateful choice of either to serve God or reject Him.  It is thought that they were told about the Incarnation, and the fallen angels did not want to submit to God’s Plan that God the Son would be born of a woman.  Further, they did not want to have to give honor to the Woman, the Mother of God, who is a creature.  They didn’t see Mary as God’s wonderful masterpiece, she, who was fit to be Queen of heaven and of all creation.  They saw her merely as a creature below them in excellence because of her lower nature as man.  Thus, they fell because of pride.  So we can see how Tobias was so wise to advise his son to “Never suffer pride to reign in thy mind, or in thy words: for from it all perdition took its beginning.” [Tobias 4:14]

The fallen angels committed one sin.  Because of the infused knowledge of their nature and the way that their intellects work, they made one irrevocable choice.  They rejected God’s Will and Plan for them and got the punishment they deserved.  Their one sin was mortal and they lost God forever.  The devils did not want to change their nature and become gods because this was impossible and if their nature changed, they would cease to exist.  They didn’t want to serve God the way He intended for them.

Therefore, we see that their punishment is eternal and never can be changed.

Fr. Hurter, S.J., in his book Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat, has these powerful words to say:

Now my soul, what do you say?   What will happen to me?  I am not an angel; I have sinned, not only once, but many times; I have known from revelation the severity of the avenging justice of God; I have been pardoned often; I have repeatedly broken my word and my resolutions after having vowed to amend.  How ashamed must I not be as I stand before the judgment seat of God?  If the angels were punished thus, what do I deserve?  But God has spared me: “the mercies of the Lord that we are not consumed.”  Lamentations, 3:22 [4]

 

II. The Sin of Our First Parents:

Adam and Eve were created with perfect justice.  Their intellects were very keen, and they had gifted understanding and a rich fund of knowledge.  Their wills were likewise strong and their passions obeyed their wills perfectly.  They had no sickness or pain.  They were free from death. They had no anxiety about anything.  All of their material needs were supplied.  Most wonderful of all was that they were heirs to heaven. 

The devils were envious of Adam and Eve’s happiness, and with their fallen angelic natures, they didn’t want Adam and Eve to have a chance to go to heaven.  They didn’t want Adam and Eve to possess the Supreme Good, Whom the devils can never possess.

Therefore, the devil, knowing that Eve was created with an inferior intellect than Adam’s, and that she was created with a softer heart; the devil set his trap for Adam by fooling Eve first.  Then, with newly-fallen human nature, she convinced Adam to commit sin. 

What were the consequences of this?  The punishments ensued immediately.   Grace is lost and the sonship of God is lost.  Man can no longer go to heaven.  The lower appetites, namely, the passions are made strong and rebellious.  Death and sickness now enter the world.  Now man must toil with great sweat and the woman has much to suffer.  The results do not just affect Adam and Eve, but the entire human race.  What massive consequences for Adam’s fall since he is the head of the entire human race. All of these consequences are attributed to Adam.  And yet the personal sins of all the rest of mankind add to these consequences and misery in the whole world.  Each man feels keenly his personal sins and weakness, even if he would not admit them to others.  In his book Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat, Fr. Hurter says:

How shall I fare who have sinned so often, even after I had known the severity of God’s avenging justice from revelation?  What salutary fear will come over me, and how shall I stand before the tribunal of God’s justice, ashamed in the consciousness of my many sins? What am I to think of sin after such a judgment?  How thankful must I be to God, for I can attribute it only to His mercy that I am not among the lost![5]

III. The Sins of Individuals:

Here St. Ignatius tells us to quake as we think about the sins of so many suffering in hell at this moment who have not committed as many sins as we have.  Think about those souls who have not received as many graces as we have and yet they still damned their souls.  What do we deserve?  What must we expect?  Hence, I must consider sin as the greatest evil that a man can meet with!

St. Ignatius, after giving us such sobering food for thought, tells us to go the Foot of the Cross, with hearts heavy with shame and woefully confounded.  Let us see the price of sin.  Such is the cause of so much anguish and pain for Our Dear Lord.  We owe Him so much!  How have we treated Him? What can I do for Him now?  What can I do for Him from now on?  I must hate sin which is the cause of so much spiritual and physical pain for Our Dear Lord, the cause of such a price to the Eternal Father.  With no hesitation we should tell Our Lord how sorry we are for offending Him so constantly with our selfishness.  We should beg Him to forgive us, to strengthen our hatred for sin and to strengthen our love for Him Who is so loveable.  With hearts full of loving things to say to Our Lord, we pour out our colloquy to His Sacred Heart.  St. Ignatius wants us to end our colloquy with an Our Father.  We could certainly thank Our Lord for allowing us to do this meditation and giving us a better understanding of our poor selves.

In our next lesson, discussing Exercises two, three, and four, St. Ignatius wants us to treat the subject of sin again but with deeper penetration of what sin is.  Hence, we will examine the malice of sin.  We will delve into the many ramifications of the horrifying aspects of sin. So that thus being horrified and filled with a more tender love of Our Lord, we will shun sin with all our heart.


[1]           The basic instruction on how to do “a meditation” was given in Lesson #2 of the School of Sanctity series, in September 2021.  This article can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/09/03/lesson-2-meditation-how-why/

 

However, we will include footnotes in this current article to refresh the reader’s mind on some of the key aspects of meditation because not everyone may be aware of how a meditation is done.

 

[2]           Here St. Ignatius is not intending to limit the exercitant from doing a colloquy whenever he finds his heart is full of things to say to God, or Our Lady, etc.  The colloquy he suggests here is more in a manner of closing the meditation.

[3]           This would be, the exercitant spontaneously going into his colloquy— pouring his heart out to God.  This outpouring of one’s heart is also called affections and these are the result or the fruit of making the considerations.  In Catholic Candle’s Mary’s School of Sanctity Lesson #2, we explained how a meditation in general is done.   The considerations given in the material for the meditation are meant to foster one of the four types of prayer, namely, thanksgiving, adoration, contrition, and petition.  As we explained in Lesson #2, this “talking to God” is the lifting of the heart and mind to God, which is what prayer actually is.  In other words, this colloquy or prayer is the fruit of meditation.

[4]           Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck copyright 1918.; third edition 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, Page 34.

[5]            Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck copyright 1918.; third edition 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, Page 37.

 

The Feminist Program is the same as that of Satan and Marx – Part VI

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note:

In February 2022, Catholic Candle began a multi-part examination of how the feminists follow the same program as Satan and Marx.  This article is entitled The Feminist Program is the same as that of Satan and Marx. 

Part 1 analyzes Satan’s program and begins to analyze how Marx has the same program.  Part 1 can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/02/24/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx/. 

Part 2 completes the analysis showing how Marx’s program is the same as Satan’s program.  Part 2 can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/03/27/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-ii/.  

As shown in those first two parts of this article, Satan’s and Marx’s eight-point program:

1.    Is anti-God (and anti-worship of God);

2.    Promotes disobedience and opposition to the authority ordained by God;

3.    Seeks to divide people;

 

4.    Promotes discontent, envy, and discord;

 

5.    Promotes hatred;

 

6.    Is result-oriented and self-interested; Satan neither acts according to immutable principles nor encourages his followers to do so;

 

7.    Is full of lies; and

 

8.    Is against Nature and is anti-Natural Law.

Part 3 begins the study of modern feminism and feminist leaders to see how they follow this same satanic and Marxist program.  Part 3 shows how feminism and feminist leaders are anti-God and anti-worship of God.  This article can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/04/20/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-iii/.

 

Part 4 covers three additional aspects of how the feminist leaders and feminist principles follow Satan’s and Marx’s program:

A.   They promote disobedience, revolt, and opposition to the authority ordained by God;

B.   They seek to divide people; and

C.   They promote discontent, envy, and discord.

Part 4 of this article can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/05/27/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-2/

 

Part 5 covers two additional aspects of how the feminist leaders and feminist principles follow Satan’s and Marx’s program:

A.   Modern feminism promotes the program of Satan and Marx by promoting hatred; and

 

B.   Feminist leaders are result-oriented and unprincipled just like Satan and Marx.

Part 5 of this article can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/06/27/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-v/

 

Part 6:

The Feminist Program is the same as that of Satan and Marx


(Continuing where we left off last month)

This month, we cover the second-last aspect of the feminist program, which is also the seventh element of the eight-point program of Satan and the Marxists:

 

Modern feminist leaders are full of lies.

A thinking person would expect ahead of time, that modern feminist leaders would be liars because they follow the program of Satan, who is the father of lies.

One testimony of this is from the sister of secular feminist leader, Kate Millett, who described Kate and her fellow feminist leaders as “so full of lies” and deception.  Here are the words of Kate’s sister:

Without a doubt, over time, once she [viz., Kate] became enmeshed in the larger group of leftist activists around the world, her madness, buoyed by their lunacy, became even greater and more impossible to penetrate. Their groupthink is so dense, so full of lies, the vocabulary is so deceptive and intricately designed to brainwash, that just to witness it and their interactions from a distance is beyond alarming.  After we buried our mother, I never spoke with Kate again, as I’d finally come to accept that there is no honest communication with this mental illness that is today’s liberalism.[1]

Another example is the lying of Betty Friedan, who is a career-long, well-known liar, as well as “America’s premier feminist” (as she is called).  Here is how David Horowitz expressed it:

Betty Friedan … always presented herself as a typical suburban housewife; until she began work on her groundbreaking book [“The Feminist Mystique”]; she was in fact nothing of the kind.  In fact, under her maiden name, Betty Goldstein, she was a political activist and professional propagandist for the Communist left for a quarter of a century before the publication of “The Feminist Mystique” launched the modern women’s movement.

Professor Horowitz[2] documents that Friedan was from her college days, and until her mid-30s, a Stalinist Marxist, the political intimate of the leaders of America’s Cold War fifth column and for a time even the lover of a young Communist physicist working on atomic bomb projects in Berkeley’s radiation lab with J. Robert Oppenheimer. …

It is fascinating that Friedan not only felt the need to lie about her real views and life experience then, but still feels the need to lie about them now.  …

So why the continuing lies?  The reason is this: The truth is too embarrassing.  Imagine what it would be like for Betty Friedan (the name actually is Friedman) to admit that as a Jew she opposed America’s entry into the war against Hitler because Stalin told her that it was just an inter-imperialist fracas?  Imagine what it would be like for America’s premier feminist to acknowledge that well into her 30s she thought Stalin was the Father of the Peoples, and that the United States was an evil empire, and that her interest in women’s liberation was just a subtext of her real desire to create a Soviet America.[3]

Like Satan and Marx, we see feminist leaders are prone to be liars.  They:

➢  Are liars, saying that goddesses should be acknowledged as existing because it is necessary to say this to achieve feminist goals.[4]

 

➢  Are liars, saying that the life of a harlot is good and “empowering” for women if they choose that life.

 

➢  Are liars, saying that they don’t know what a woman is, as did feminist/leftist Ketanji Brown on March 23, 2022, during her senate confirmation hearing as a Supreme Court nominee.

 

➢  Are liars, saying that a woman needs to avoid being sensitive and should “toughen up” to compete in the world.

➢  Are liars, saying that women should wear whatever they want to wear (i.e., no matter how immodest or impure) and they are not responsible for any bad thoughts of men and are not inviting any bad conduct of men who see them.

➢  Are liars, saying that separating the marital act from its chief purpose, having children, will help women.

➢  Are liars, saying that the feminist movement is in the best interests of women.

➢  Are liars, saying that the aim of feminism is to give women more choices.[5]

➢  Are liars, saying that a woman should try to suppress her womanly, tender, and loving heart because having such a heart is a weakness.

➢  Are liars, saying that the feminist revolution will result in a better society.

➢  Are liars, saying that women are unhappy because feminism has not fully triumphed in society.

➢  Are liars, saying that divorce empowers women.

➢  Are liars, saying that obesity is just another kind of beauty.  Feminists decry ‘body shaming” and say that men oppress women and pressure them into being slim.  (The truth is that temperance is a virtue and overindulgence is a vice in both men and women.)

➢  Are liars, saying that men treat women unfairly by not treating women as if they were “just as good as men” at men’s work.

➢  Are liars, saying that motherhood should be a secondary concern for women and should not be allowed to get in the way of a woman’s career in the workplace.

➢  Are liars, saying that men and women are equally good at fulfilling men’s roles and men’s jobs.  Sometimes the feminists claim that women are better at those roles and jobs.  (One example is the feminist lie that if all nations were ruled by women things would be much better and there would be great international harmony and no wars.)

➢  Are liars, saying that women have no complementary role in society and in the human race but should simply compete with men in the male sphere.

➢  Are liars, saying that woman’s natural traits, e.g., sympathy, softness, nurturing, comforting, conciliation, dependence on and leaning on their husbands, are silly, unworthy, and should be squelched.

➢  Are liars, saying that women should fight against the feminine piety to which nature disposes them.

➢  Are liars, saying that women have no duty to obey and to be submissive to their husbands.[6]

➢  Are liars, saying that the family is not a natural institution but is a construct invented by men to oppress women.[7]

➢  Are liars, saying that fatherhood, i.e., patriarchy, is evil.

➢  Are liars, saying that women need emancipation because they are slaves.[8]

➢  Are liars, saying that women are victims of men.

 

➢  Are liars, saying that men are terrorists.[9]

➢  Are liars, saying that feminism makes a woman powerful.

➢  Are liars, saying that a woman can “have it all”, i.e., both excelling in a man’s role and job as well as having a family life if they want it.

➢  Are liars, saying that with sufficient efforts, a woman can compete with men in the career world just as well as a man.

➢  Are liars, saying that men hate women.

➢  Are liars, saying that women should be aggressive.

➢  Are liars, saying that woman should harbor violent thoughts, especially toward men.[10]

➢  Are liars, saying that children are an obstacle to women’s happiness.

➢  Are liars, saying that an unborn baby is merely a “clump of cells”.

➢  Are liars, saying that an unborn baby is part of a woman’s body.

➢  Are liars, saying that a mother murdering her unborn child is “health care” for her.

➢  Are liars, saying that a mother murdering her unborn child is safe.

➢  Are liars, saying that justice requires that everyone should always “believe women” if they allege improper conduct committed against them by a man.

➢  Are liars, saying that daycare is as good or better for children than for those children being home with their mother.

➢  Are liars, saying that women should hate men.

➢  Are liars, saying that it can be good for a woman to be promiscuous.[11]

➢  Are liars, saying that men oppress women.

➢  Are liars, saying that a woman should be career-focused and this will give her a fulfilling life.

➢  Are liars, saying that feminism makes women into goddesses.[12]

➢  Are liars, saying that men, as a group, are worthy of hatred.

➢  Are liars, saying that feminism will bring women peace, contentment, and security.

➢  Are liars, saying that femininity is weak and shameful.

➢  Are liars, saying that it is shameful for a woman to be dependent on her husband.

➢  Are liars, saying that women should compete with men, not be complementary to them.

➢  Are liars, saying that if men were softer, more emotional, more sensitive, and more like women, then women would respect and admire them more.  The truth is that when men take on feminine characteristics, they’re just wimpy and unmasculine.  God made men to be leaders, courageous, strong, and protective.

➢  Are liars, saying that Traditional Catholicism (and also those false “Christian” sects which bear some similarity to Catholicism) is a big obstacle to fair treatment and happiness for women.

➢  Are liars, saying that gender should be eliminated or ignored.[13]

➢  Are liars, saying that men and women should not have any different roles in life.[14]

➢  Are liars, saying that women should not allow a family to get in the way of having a “meaningful” and “fulfilling” life.

➢  Are liars, saying that women should focus on themselves and their own career advancement.

➢  Are liars, saying that women should be self-sufficient and independent.

➢  Are liars, saying that the many differences between men and women are all due to society forcing them into different “gender roles” when they were young.  The truth is that men tend to be more goal-oriented and competitive.  By contrast, women are more relational and cooperative.  God placed those characteristics into the sexes to assist them in the roles and work God planned for them.

➢  Are liars, saying that the more a woman achieves in a career, the more attractive and desirable she becomes to men.  The truth is that career accomplishments are not what a good and manly man looks for in a wife.  He seeks a woman’s unique feminine attributes: love, sensitivity, giving, attention to detail, her abilities to relate to him, etc.

➢  Are liars, saying that women should postpone marriage and children to focus on their careers.  The truth is that a woman “shall be saved through childbearing; if she continues in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.”  1 Timothy, 2:15.

➢  Are liars, saying that femininity, sweetness, kindness, and softness are weaknesses and that women need to be firm, aggressive, and competitive.

➢  Are liars, saying that women don’t need men.  This is the message in the feminist slogan, promoted by secular feminist Gloria Steinem, “A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.”  The truth is that God made men and women complementary and both sexes need the other.  But feminists lie, saying that women are self-sufficient. 

➢  Are liars, saying that they want “diversity” but when feminists (and other leftists) are in charge, they are rigidly exclusionary – of men, of homemakers, of traditionalists, of conservatives, etc.

 

Conclusion

Any thinking person sees that feminist leaders and feminism are tools of the father of lies, Satan.  Not only the feminists, but also the Marxists, the mainstream media and almost all public sources of information promote lies.  We seem to be in that time predicted by St. Paul:

There shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.

2 Timothy, 4:3-4 (emphasis added).

This is a reminder that we must not only fight feminism (and the other evils) but also must be entirely devoted to the truth!  The truth is such a great blessing and it will be taken from us if we do not appreciate it enough and devote our life to it!  We must be on our guard because we too will be deceived if we are not selfless in our devotion to the truth.

Let us value nothing as much as the truth!


[2]           This professor, named “Horowitz”, is a liberal author who wrote a book about Betty Friedan.  The magazine article quoted here is a review of that book.  That magazine article is (by coincidence) written by an author also named Horowitz.

[3]           Betty Friedan’s secret Communist past by David Horowitz, published in the liberal Salon Magazine, January 18, 1999, available here: https://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/friedan-per-horowitz.html (bracketed words added to show context).

[4]           Feminist leader, Carol P. Christ, in her essay “Why Women Need the Goddess,” argued that women need a substitute for the traditional religion that they seek to overthrow.  Here are her words:

Symbol systems cannot simply be rejected; they must be replaced.  Where there is not any replacement, the mind will revert to familiar structures at times of crisis, bafflement or defeat.  …  A question immediately arises, Is the Goddess simply female power writ large, and if so, why bother with the symbol of Goddess at all?  Or does the symbol refer to a Goddess “out there” who is not reducible to a human potential?

 

Carol P. Christ, quoted from her essay “Why Women Need the Goddess”, as quoted here: http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2163

[5]           Here, for example, are the candid words of one secular feminist writer, Simone de Beauvoir, in an interview with another secular feminist leader, Betty Friedan, in which Beauvoir declared that their aim is a totalitarian system which inflicts compulsion on women (as well as men):

No, we do not believe that any woman should have this choice.  No woman should be authorized to stay home to raise her children.  Society should be totally different.  Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.

 

Manfred Hauke, God or Goddess? Feminist Theology: What Is It? Where Does It Lead? (Ignatius Press, 1995), p.57 (emphasis added).

[6]           Sacred Scripture and the Natural Law both show that the husband is the head of the family and his wife must obey him.  Here is one of the ways that St. Paul states this truth:

Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church.  He is the Savior of His Body.  Therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be, to their husbands in all things.

Ephesians, 5:22-24.

[7]              See, e.g., The Second Sex, by secular feminist leader, Simone De Beauvoir, Vintage Books, New York, pages 88-89.  Here is the longer declaration by De Beauvoir:

This is the advent of the patriarchal family founded on private property.  In such a family woman is oppressed.  Man reigning sovereign permits himself, among other things, his sexual whims: he sleeps with slaves or courtesans, he is polygamous.  As soon as customs make reciprocity possible, woman takes revenge through infidelity: adultery becomes a natural part of marriage.  This is the only defense woman has against the domestic slavery she is bound to; her social oppression is the consequence of her economic oppression.

 

Note: a semicolon added ten words from the end of the quote for clarity.

[8]           Here is how secular feminist leader, Kate Millett put it:

A sexual revolution begins with the emancipation of women, who are the chief victims of patriarchy ….

Words of Kate Millett, found here: Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/patriarchy-quotes

[9]           Here is how the secular feminist, Bell Hooks, stringed together a risible series of adjectives to characterize men, including that they are terrorists:

 

Often in my lectures when I use the phrase “an imperialist, white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy” to describe our nation’s political system, audiences laugh.  No one has ever explained why accurately naming this system is funny.  The laughter is itself a weapon of patriarchal terrorism.

Quote from bell hooks, found here: https://www.quotemaster.org/qd1b9809d204b3a0926962163ecf22929 (emphasis added).

Note: Bell Hooks is a woman who employed the gimmick of spelling her name without initial capital letters.

 

[10]         For example, secular feminist leader, Andrea Dworkin, announced this violent day-dream:

 

I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.

 

Quoted from: https://thoughtcatalog.com/jake-fillis/2014/05/23-quotes-from-feminists-that-will-make-you-rethink-feminism/


[11]         Here is one way that secular feminist leader, Simone De Beauvoir, emphasized the “downtrodden state of women”:

This is the advent of the patriarchal family founded on private property.  In such a family woman is oppressed.  Man reigning sovereign permits himself, among other things, his sexual whims: he sleeps with slaves or courtesans, he is polygamous.  As soon as customs make reciprocity possible, woman takes revenge through infidelity: adultery becomes a natural part of marriage.  This is the only defense woman has against the domestic slavery she is bound to; her social oppression is the consequence of her economic oppression.

 

The Second Sex, Simone De Beauvoir, Vintage Books, New York, pages 88-89 (Note: a semicolon added ten words from the end of the quote for clarity).


[12]         Starhawk, who is a feminist leader and a practicing witch, teaches in one of her books:

The symbolism of the Goddess is not a parallel structure to the symbolism of God the Father.  The Goddess does not rule the world; She is the world ….  The importance of the Goddess symbol for women cannot be over-stressed.  The image of the Goddess inspires women to see ourselves as divine, our bodies as sacred, the changing phases of our lives as holy, our aggression as healthy, and our anger as purifying.  Through the Goddess, we can discover our strength, enlighten our minds, own our bodies, and celebrate our emotions.

 

Starhawk, The Spiral Dance, (Harper & Row, 1989), pp. 23-24, as quoted here: http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2163

 

[13]         Here is how secular feminist, Sheila Jeffreys, phrased this feminist goal:

[G]ender can have no place in the egalitarian future that feminism aims to create.

― Sheila Jeffreys, Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism, found here: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/radical-feminism

[14]         Here is how secular feminist, Sheila Jeffreys, phrased this feminist goal:

Feminist social constructionists understand the task of feminism to be the destruction and elimination of what have been called “sex roles” and are now more usually called “gender”.

― Sheila Jeffreys, Beauty and Misogyny: Harmful Cultural Practices in the West, found here: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/radical-feminism

The Biggest Mistake Politicians Make is Separation of Church and State

Posted on by Catholic Candle

 

Separating the Catholic Church from the civil government does not bring happiness.  The opposite is true.  Rather, it is important to have all laws of a country based on God’s laws in order for the nation to have peace and prosperity and its citizens to have happiness.

 

This relationship is covered by the following points:

 

The Church and the State are both perfect societies, that is to say, each essentially must aim to achieve the common good in its own sphere.  Each has in itself the means for achieving its particular end, which is the happiness of its people.[1]  To consider these relations in brief from an ethical perspective, it will be necessary to state:

 

➢  The basis of their respective rights.  All rights and duties on earth come ultimately from God through the Divine Law, either natural or positive.

➢  The range of their respective jurisdictions.  As there are many distinct States of equal natural right, the subjects of each are restricted in number, and its government of them is practically confined within the limits of its own territory. 

 

➢  Their mutual corporate relationship.  Every perfect society must      acknowledge the rights of every other perfect society, must render to it all duties consequent upon such rights, must respect its autonomy, and may demand the recognition of its own rights and the fulfillment of obligations arising therefrom.

 

➢  The union of Church and State.  There is some confusion in the public mind about the meaning of the union of Church and State.  The essential idea of such union is a condition of affairs where a State recognizes its natural and supernatural relation to the Church, professes the true Catholic Faith, and practices the worship prescribed by the Church, protects it, enacts no laws to its harm, while, in case of necessity and at its instance, taking all just and requisite civil measures to promote the Divinely-appointed purpose of the Church. 

 

There are counter-theories regarding the “separation of Church and State”.  These may be considered thusly:

A.   Absolute Liberalism;

B.   Qualified Liberalism; and

C.   The Theory of the Regalists.

 

A.  Absolute Liberalism is the most extreme, having its source in the principles of the French Revolution and beginning with those who denied the existence of God.  They hold that all rights come from the state.

 

B.  Qualified Liberalism does not go so far.  It contends that Church and State are different entities and can act independently, neither being subordinate to the other.  However, at the same time it claims that the State must be detached from every religious society.  The axiom of this newer Liberalism – “A free Church in a free State”– actually means an emasculated Church with no more freedom than the shifting politics, internal and external, choose to give it.

 

C.  The Theory of the Regalists conceded a certain amount of social right from its Divine Founder, but conditioned the exercise of all social powers upon the consent of the civil government.[2]

 

None of these counter theories have any validity when they come up against the hard fact that man has no right to make his own laws without regard for the law of God.

 

Since both Church and State were established for the good of men, they cannot be totally separated without evil consequences.

 

One might ask what was the contribution of the Catholic Church to American democracy?  In general, we may say that the fundamentals of American democracy were derived from traditional thought and philosophy, and since these, being of Western Europe, were essentially Catholic, therefore, our democracy had its roots in the Catholic Church.

 

If this is true, what should be the attitude of the Catholic citizen towards the State?  The Catholic citizen is bound in conscience to obey the State, provided faith and morals are not endangered thereby.

 

The State is not the slave-master of its citizens but has the duty to attempt to bring about their good and their happiness, like a father of his family.  The inherent rights of individuals, and particularly of parents, cannot be usurped by the State.  For instance, parents, not the State, have the natural right to educate their children.  The State should merely supervise and facilitate education, but should not enact laws contrary to the obligations of parents to give their children a religious education.[3]

 

Most governments worldwide separate Church and State, such as in Socialism, Communism, and even Capitalism.  In this way the citizens look for necessities from the State, rather than praying to God.

 

The State has been trying to eliminate the Church from the affairs of government for decades.  It has moved on many fronts to accomplish this, such as proclaiming that there be no religion in public schools, in the town square, on Main Street, in civil and family law, resulting in sinful and evil laws such as same-sex “marriage”, feminism, defunding the police, sex education in schools, abortion, and transitioning the holy day of Christmas into a secular holiday, all tending to result in greater social and cultural breakdown.  Most problems in the world are due to the separation of true Catholic Church and State. 

 

Citizens must do what they can to get involved in local and national governments, and with the help of God bring His Church back into her role of ensuring that the civil government’s dictates conform with the rule and the desires of Christ the King. 


[1]              Here is how St. Thomas teaches this truth:

It belongs to … the function of the ruler of the state to provide the good life for the many, in terms of what will obtain for them the beatitude of heaven”. 

On Kingship, Bk. 1, c. 15.

[2]           The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912, Vol. XIV, The Gilmary Society, Publishers, pp. 250-253.  (Bracketed words added for clarity.)


[3]           My Catholic Faith, Bishop Louis LaRavoire Morrow, 1941, pp. 128-129.

CC in brief — The Existence of Time in the Afterlife

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note: Catholic Candle normally examines particular issues thoroughly, at length, using the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and the other Doctors of the Church.  By contrast, our feature CC in brief, gives an extremely short answer to a reader’s question.  We invite readers to submit their own questions.

Q.         While sanctifying the Sunday at home, I read in a sermon recently that stated:

“Time is a blessing which we enjoy only in this life; it is not enjoyed in the next; it is not found in heaven nor in hell.”

Is this true that there is no time in heaven or in hell?

  1. There is time in heaven and in hell.

Anywhere that there are bodies which move, there is time.  In fact, time is the measure of the motion of a body.  When a body moves, there is a “before” and an “after” of time, with the movement continuing between this beginning and its ending.  By contrast, angels are not, properly speaking, in time because they do not have bodies.


In heaven

We hold that it will be possible for the blessed to move their bodies in heaven.  We hold that they will be able to smile, to sing, and to move from place-to-place.  In fact, they will have the gift of agility in their glorified bodies.  This will make their movement effortless and extremely fast.  We reject the idea that the bodies of the blessed will be frozen in perpetual immobility.  Because the blessed will move their bodies, there will a “before” and an “after” to these movements and there will be time in heaven.

Further, we hold that it will be possible, e.g., for Our Lord and the Blessed Mother to turn their heads and to smile upon the saints.  

Because of all such movements, there will certainly be time in heaven.


In limbo

The limbo of the babies is a part of hell (but is not a part of the hell of the damned).  We hold that limbo is a place of natural happiness.  We hold that the resurrection of the bodies at the end of the world will include the bodies of those in limbo.  We hold that those persons in limbo will be able to move their bodies.  

Perhaps those in limbo will stroll in beautiful surroundings.  Perhaps they will sing or talk together.  Any such activities (which are part of living in natural happiness) will involve their bodies and will require movement and, thus, time.

In the hell of the damned

It would seem that the damned in hell will not be able to do any activities which will give them relief or enjoyment.  So, in that regard, they might be fixed in immoveable pain and misery.  

However, there are some bodily activities that might occur in hell.  Perhaps the damned will torture each other, or scream at each other, or shout curses and words of hatred at each other.  

So, is there time in heaven and hell?

Thus, we hold that there is unending time in heaven, in the limbo of the babies, and in the hell of the damned.  

Where is there eternity?

In fact, one could ask whether there is any eternity in hell.  Loosely speaking, never-ending time is sometimes called eternity. Since the time in hell is literally unending, we could loosely call it “eternal” in this way.  

Further, we talk about an unpleasant experience being eternal.  For example, if the dentist was drilling my tooth for a long time, we might say, as a manner of expression, that “I sat in the dentist’s chair for an eternity.”

But strictly speaking, it seems that eternity belongs most properly only to heaven, and not to hell.  Whereas time is similar to a point moving along a line, and for which there is a “before” and an “after”, by contrast, eternity is an ever-present “now” which is like a point that does not move.  

Thus, properly speaking, God is in eternity.  He never moves in any way.  He thinks only one thought and has only one act of love without end.

The blessed in heaven are also, properly speaking, in eternity not as they smile at Our Lord (or whatever other acts they do which involve their bodies), but rather as they are immersed in the greatest happiness of heaven, which is the Beatific Vision.  

In this vision, their minds will see God in His essence, without any movement.  As the blessed see God, their minds will not go from “point to point” in the manner in which we think on this earth.  Their minds will see a single vision of God’s essence without movement or weariness, without end.

Thus, in summary, God, the angels, and the saints are in eternity, properly speaking in the Beatific Vision.  The blessed in heaven are also in unending time, along with all humans in limbo and in hell.

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note: Catholic Candle normally examines particular issues thoroughly, at length, using the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and the other Doctors of the Church.  By contrast, our feature CC in brief, gives an extremely short answer to a reader’s question.  We invite readers to submit their own questions.

 

CC in brief

 

The Existence of Time in the Afterlife

 

Q.        While sanctifying the Sunday at home, I read in a sermon recently that stated:

 

“Time is a blessing which we enjoy only in this life; it is not enjoyed in the next; it is not found in heaven nor in hell.”

 

Is this true that there is no time in heaven or in hell?

 

 

A.        There is time in heaven and in hell.

 

Anywhere that there are bodies which move, there is time.  In fact, time is the measure of the motion of a body.  When a body moves, there is a “before” and an “after” of time, with the movement continuing between this beginning and its ending.  By contrast, angels are not, properly speaking, in time because they do not have bodies.

In heaven

 

We hold that it will be possible for the blessed to move their bodies in heaven.  We hold that they will be able to smile, to sing, and to move from place-to-place.  In fact, they will have the gift of agility in their glorified bodies.  This will make their movement effortless and extremely fast.  We reject the idea that the bodies of the blessed will be frozen in perpetual immobility.  Because the blessed will move their bodies, there will a “before” and an “after” to these movements and there will be time in heaven.

 

Further, we hold that it will be possible, e.g., for Our Lord and the Blessed Mother to turn their heads and to smile upon the saints. 

 

Because of all such movements, there will certainly be time in heaven.

 


In limbo

The limbo of the babies is a part of hell (but is not a part of the hell of the damned).  We hold that limbo is a place of natural happiness.  We hold that the resurrection of the bodies at the end of the world will include the bodies of those in limbo.  We hold that those persons in limbo will be able to move their bodies. 

 

Perhaps those in limbo will stroll in beautiful surroundings.  Perhaps they will sing or talk together.  Any such activities (which are part of living in natural happiness) will involve their bodies and will require movement and, thus, time.

 

 

In the hell of the damned

 

It would seem that the damned in hell will not be able to do any activities which will give them relief or enjoyment.  So, in that regard, they might be fixed in immoveable pain and misery. 

 

However, there are some bodily activities that might occur in hell.  Perhaps the damned will torture each other, or scream at each other, or shout curses and words of hatred at each other. 

 

 

So, is there time in heaven and hell?

 

Thus, we hold that there is unending time in heaven, in the limbo of the babies, and in the hell of the damned. 

 

 

Where is there eternity?

 

In fact, one could ask whether there is any eternity in hell.  Loosely speaking, never-ending time is sometimes called eternity. Since the time in hell is literally unending, we could loosely call it “eternal” in this way. 

 

Further, we talk about an unpleasant experience being eternal.  For example, if the dentist was drilling my tooth for a long time, we might say, as a manner of expression, that “I sat in the dentist’s chair for an eternity.”

 

But strictly speaking, it seems that eternity belongs most properly only to heaven, and not to hell.  Whereas time is similar to a point moving along a line, and for which there is a “before” and an “after”, by contrast, eternity is an ever-present “now” which is like a point that does not move. 

 

Thus, properly speaking, God is in eternity.  He never moves in any way.  He thinks only one thought and has only one act of love without end.

 

The blessed in heaven are also, properly speaking, in eternity not as they smile at Our Lord (or whatever other acts they do which involve their bodies), but rather as they are immersed in the greatest happiness of heaven, which is the Beatific Vision. 

 

In this vision, their minds will see God in His essence, without any movement.  As the blessed see God, their minds will not go from “point to point” in the manner in which we think on this earth.  Their minds will see a single vision of God’s essence without movement or weariness, without end.

 

Thus, in summary, God, the angels, and the saints are in eternity, properly speaking in the Beatific Vision.  The blessed in heaven are also in unending time, along with all humans in limbo and in hell.

The Feminist Program is the same as that of Satan and Marx – Part V

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note:

In February 2022, Catholic Candle began a multi-part examination of how the feminists follow the same program as Satan and Marx.  This article is entitled The Feminist Program is the same as that of Satan and Marx. 

Part 1 analyzes Satan’s program and begins to analyze how Marx has the same program.  Part 1 can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/02/24/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx/. 

Part 2 completes the analysis showing how Marx’s program is the same as Satan’s program.  Part 2 can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/03/27/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-ii/.  

As shown in those first two parts of this article, Satan’s and Marx’s eight-point program:

1.    Is anti-God (and anti-worship of God);

2.    Promotes disobedience and opposition to the authority ordained by God;

3.    Seeks to divide people;

 

4.    Promotes discontent, envy, and discord;

 

5.    Promotes hatred;

 

6.    Is result-oriented and self-interested; Satan neither acts according to immutable principles nor encourages his followers to do so;

 

7.    Is full of lies; and

 

8.    Is against Nature and is anti-Natural Law.

Part 3 begins the study of modern feminism and feminist leaders to see how they follow this same satanic and Marxist program.  Part 3 shows how feminism and feminist leaders are anti-God and anti-worship of God.  This article can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/04/20/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-iii/.

 

Part 4 covers three additional aspects of how the feminist leaders and feminist principles follow Satan’s and Marx’s program:

A.   They promote disobedience, revolt, and opposition to the authority ordained by God;

B.   They seek to divide people; and

C.   They promote discontent, envy, and discord.

Part 4 of this article can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/05/27/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-2/

 


Part 5:


(Continuing where we left off last month)

This month, we cover two aspects of the feminist program:

1.    Modern feminism promotes the program of Satan and Marx by promoting hatred; and

 

2.    Feminist leaders are result-oriented and unprincipled just like Satan and Marx.

 

1.   Modern feminism and feminist leaders promote hatred.

Since Satan is full of extreme hatred and Marx called himself “the greatest hater of the so-called positive”[1], we know that all of Satan’s and Marx’s works are imbued with their hatred, too.  This is one reason why it is immediately plain to persons with greater discernment that feminism is a work of Satan – because it is imbued with a share of Satan’s hatred. 

When Catholic journalist, Mrs. Donna Steichen, attended many so-called “women’s empowerment” conferences, the satanic hatred at those feminist gatherings struck her so strongly that she called her book-length report, Ungodly Rage.[2] 

Whereas God made women to be the hearts of their homes, by contrast, the feminism on display at these conferences showed how completely Satan has twisted those women so that Mrs. Steichen said those women showed “feminism’s anti-feminine heart”.[3]  Satan and feminism turned these women and their movement into vehicles of rage and hatred.

Most feminist leaders do not declare that they hate men.  This would tend to be bad “public relations” for the feminist movement.  However, some feminist leaders are very candid about their hatred of men.  For example, secular feminist leader, Robin Morgan, Editor of Ms. Magazine, counted hating men as a virtue.  Here are her words:

I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.[4]

Similarly secular feminist leader, Marilyn French said:

You think I hate men.  I guess I do ….   I think that men are rotten and women are great.[5]

Hatred is wanting evil for another person, especially his ultimate evil.  We see that Satan’s hatred causes him to especially want the greatest evil for people, viz., their eternal damnation. 

Among feminist leaders who don’t use the word “hate” with regard to men, you see their hatred in the evil they wish for men.  For example, secular feminist leader, Andrea Dworkin, showed her hatred for men in these words:

I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.[6]

Other feminist leaders express their hatred for men more generally, wishing evil for men as a group.  Here is how secular feminist leader, Sally Miller Gearhart, expressed her hatred for men, in her essay entitled, The Future – If There Is One – Is Female:

The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.[7]

Similarly, secular feminist leader, Kate Millett, routinely opened her “women’s empowerment” meetings by declaring that their goal is to destroy men, i.e., to destroy “the American patriarch”.[8]

Here is how feminist leader, Robin Morgan, urged women to commit patricide:

Sexism is not the fault of women – kill your fathers, not your mothers.[9]

The hatred which is inseparable from feminist principles is not reserved for men alone.  Feminist leaders also sometimes attack conservative women viciously.  For example, one feminist called conservative women “white nationalist racist gender traitors.”[10]  Like Satan’s hatred, feminist hatred can target women as well as men.

Feminist leaders also incite women to hate men by promoting the idea that men hate them.  For example, secular feminist leader, Germaine Greer, declared:

Women fail to understand how much men hate them.  …  All men hate some women some of the time and some men hate all women all of the time.[11]

Greer also told women that no man exists who is free from hating women.  Here are her words:

The man is not born who will not hate some woman on some occasion.  Odds on, it will be the woman with the greatest claim on his love.[12]

Feminist principles also try to root out the maternal love God put into women by trying to convince them that, however their sons might appear good and loving, there is male treachery in all of them which they should fear and hate.  Here is how feminist Andrea Dworkin stated it:

Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.[13]

What we are showing in this section, is that feminism and feminist leaders follow their founders, Satan and Marx, in promoting hatred.  Of course, just as there are naïve Masons who simply view Freemasonry as an aid to career advancement or as a way to be accepted in a particular social circle, without understanding the deep evil of Freemasonry, likewise, there are naïve feminists that don’t look deep enough to understand the magnitude of the evil that is integral to feminism. 

But this does not take away from the fact that feminism is fundamentally the devil’s work.  We must fight feminism!  One element of this fight is to love God with all our hearts and to honor, love, and treat women as God wants us to do – not with Satan’s false “luv” for them and an unnatural pretense of equality (as opposed to the true, natural complementariness of the sexes).

 

2.   Feminist leaders are result-oriented and unprincipled (just like Satan and Marx are) because they neither act according to immutable principles nor encourage their followers to do so.

Feminist leaders are unprincipled, like Marx and Satan.  They are committed to their (evil) goals and so, to accomplish these goals, they say and do whatever they can to achieve them.  They are devoid of firm, overarching principles that regulate the choice of which means they can and should use to achieve their goals.  Instead, feminist leaders use any means which they think will be effective.

For example, feminists follow Marx in his goal of pushing all women out of their homes and into the workforce.  Thus, feminist leaders see the “need” to prevent children from coming into existence because children would be an obstacle to a woman’s career.  This is because caring for children would make her unable to be a fully-independent worker – which is a feminist and Marxist goal.  Thus, pursuing this goal, feminists tirelessly promote methods to frustrate fecundity and the Natural and Divine Laws in order to prevent children from being such “obstacles”. 

Thus, feminists promote contraception as safe and good because it furthers this feminist-Marxist goal (viz., moving all women into the workforce), as well as some of their other evil goals, too.  Of course, contraception is always evil, and sometimes kills a baby who has already been conceived.  Further, contraception is always harmful to the mother physically, spiritually, and socially – harming her relationship with her husband as well as harming society more generally.

For the same reason, feminists also promote the cold-blooded, deliberate murder of innocent babies in abortion.  Thus, they also promote the lie that a mother murdering her baby is “health care” for the mother and that such murder is “safe”, although it is fatal for the baby, is sometimes fatal to the mother and is always harmful – physically, spiritually, and socially – harming her relationship with her husband as well as harming society more generally.

But because such evils promote feminist goals, feminists vociferously insist that an unborn baby is not a human being but only a “clump of cells”.  This feminist assertion is so obviously false that no one really believes it – not even the feminists.  To take two reasons, among many others:

1.    The baby has a different genetic code than the mother so obviously is not part of the mother’s body. 

 

2.    Further, the baby has his own head, hands, feet, and the rest of the body.  When the feminists lie by saying that this baby is simply the mother’s tissue, this absurdly means that she has two heads, four hands, and four feet. 

Although everyone, including the feminists, know the baby is a separate human being, they insist otherwise because they are unprincipled and take whatever position serves their goals.

Although the feminists want to promote the Marxist goal of getting (and keeping) all women in the workforce, nonetheless, these feminist leaders know that the strong maternal instinct which God put into women will cause many of them to have some children.  Therefore, the feminists devise strategies to get the women back in the workforce as quickly as possible after the children’s births.  For example, the feminists (and Marxists) ensure that women can foist-off the responsibilities of motherhood onto other independent workers whose job it is to feed and babysit those children, i.e., daycare. 

Although common sense and the maternal instinct make it clear that daycare is greatly inferior to a loving mother’s care of her own children, the feminists disregard this principle and say and do whatever is expedient to accomplish their goal of removing mothers from their homes.  They declare that daycare is better for children (or at least not worse) than a woman fulfilling her God-given role as a nurturing, loving mother.[14]

A further example is that the feminists profess (falsely) that they are seeking the best-interests of (and the advantages of) women.  But the feminist leaders are really promoting Marxist principles which are ruthlessly anti-woman.  That is why the feminists viciously attack conservative women whenever it is expedient because feminist leaders attack whoever and whatever stands in the way of their (Marxist) agenda.

Another example of unprincipled feminist leaders is their promotion of the idea that if women allege that they were mistreated by men, then everyone should “believe women”.  This is such a stupid position that no one really believes it.  It is merely unprincipled feminist expediency.  When conservative Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh was accused by a woman (Christine Blasey Ford), President Joe Biden declared to the media that we must “believe women”.  But when Biden himself was accused by a different woman (Tara Reade), he told the media she was lying and not to believe her.  Biden (who continually promotes Marxism and feminism) never really thought we should always “believe women” over men.  Nor, does anyone else really believe that.  This “believe women” nonsense is merely leftist politics using any method whatever to achieve Marxist and feminist goals.  Biden merely said we should always “believe women” because this was expedient while trying to derail Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. 

Michelle Malkin summed up this truth well, in these sensible words:

Let me repeat the themes of my work in this area for the past two years to counter the “Believe Women” baloney:

The role of the press should be verification, not validation.

Rape is a devastating crime.  So is lying about it.

It’s not victim-blaming to get to the bottom of the truth.  It’s liar-shaming.

Don’t believe a gender.  Believe evidence.[15]


Summary

Satan, Marx and the feminist leaders are devoted to their goals and are unprincipled enough that they are willing to employ any means – however perverse – to achieve those goals.  In this, Satan, Marx, and the modern feminists are completely different from Catholics and from anyone living the life of reason and virtue. 

A good man knows that he cannot simply use any expedient means to achieve his end.  A Catholic and anyone trying to lead a virtuous life knows that both his means and his end must be good, otherwise his action is evil.[16] 

So, we see that feminist leaders are unprincipled and follow Marx (and Satan) by taking whatever means they think will accomplish the (evil) goal they seek to achieve.


[1]           https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/56204 (emphasis added).

[2]           Ungodly Rage, The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism, Mrs. Donna Steichen, Ignatius Press, San Francisco ©1991.

 

[3]           Ungodly Rage, page 165.

 


[8]           Here is part of the chant Kate Millett used to open these 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,”

https://mallorymillett.com/?p=37 (emphasis added).


[12]         Secular feminist Germaine Greer, from her book, The Whole Woman, quoted here: https://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/2015/11/05/germaine-greer-and-the-hatred-of-men/

[13]         Andrea Dworkin quote, found here: https://quotefancy.com/andrea-dworkin-quotes

[14]         For a fuller treatment of motherhood as the God-given great work of a woman’s life, read these articles:

 

Ø  https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/02/the-role-and-work-that-god-gave-to-woman/

 

Ø  https://catholiccandle.org/2020/10/01/the-importance-and-need-for-stay-at-home-moms/

 

[15]         The Dangers of ‘Believe Women’, by Michelle Malkin, found here: https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/09/19/the-dangers-of-believe-women/

[16]         For a fuller treatment of the moral principle that the end never justifies the means, read this article: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/01/05/does-the-end-ever-justify-the-means/

 

The Modern “Lifestyle” = Rejection of the Principle & Foundation

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Examples of modern diversions:

·         Smart phones (gadgets);

·         Television/movies;

·         Travelling;

·         Health “focus on me” foods, an excessive concern with specialty foods, e.g., foods certified organic or “fairtrade”, or gourmet foods;

·         Exercise;

·         Sports; and

·         Some secondary “causes” or “crusades” on which a person focuses his life, e.g., saving the whales, the environment, ozone depletion, glacier melting, celebrity fan clubs, eliminating wasteful government spending, preserving historical landmarks, ancestral family trees, etc.

All of these are pulling man away from God as the central focus of his life.  The Conciliar Church is wrapped up in the world and, therefore, also is wrapped up in these diversions from the purpose of man’s existence – by contrast, these churchmen are supposed to be teachers who guide souls to be detached from the world, as Our Lord commanded.

Modern man is sensing his lack of a real purpose in his life and is searching for some relief for his aching and empty heart.  There is much discussion of stress and how modern man is being overstressed.  Of course, a person causes havoc in his body when he tries to live without his true focus (viz., God), too, and this is because we are body and soul. 

Many try to immerse themselves in their diversions (creatures) – see the list of diversions, “causes”, and “crusades”.  Many evil men (and the devils, too) are taking advantage of the modern man’s hapless, haphazard, wandering and his going from one so-called “solution” to another.  Hence, modern man searches in vain because he lacks the one purpose of his life and happiness, namely, God.  In other words, the Principle and Foundation is missing.

Many people find little bits and pieces of the Principle and Foundation.  In fact, they may find some huge chunks or inspirations of the concept of the Principle and Foundation.  However, because they do not have the true Faith, they do not find the satisfaction they seek.  The Principle and Foundation is the rudder of the spiritual life, and the better it is kept in mind, the happier we are. 

The Principle and Foundation is based on our proper use of our reason, and the more we use our highest faculty (our reason), the closer we get to God.  God calls us all to be contemplative, that is, to practice contemplation.[1]  

Those who practice contemplation use this faculty the best.  So, it is easy to see how far off the poor modern world is from the Catholic knowledge of God and from the service we owe to Him.

Let us use the Principle and Foundation to begin a new, better, more reasonable, more faithful way of living!


[1] See Mary’s School of Sanctity Lesson #3 on Contemplation and the Objective Truth Series  reflection # 24 Spiritual Nuptials

A “Good” Life is Possible in the Catacombs

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note: We received this article from a reader. 

 

Regarding reasons why (self-described) traditional Catholics remain in a compromise group, see this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/why-do-traditional-catholics-stay-in-a-compromise-group.html

 

Regarding how to sanctify the Sunday when there is no uncompromising Mass available to attend, read this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/sanctifying-sunday-no-mass.html

 

 

 

When it is God’s Will for us, we can do without the Mass and the Sacraments But With Our Lord in a Special Way

 

We’re not alone in the catacombs.  Our Lord compensates in a special way when we stand up against compromising priests and church leaders.  How does He compensate in that special way?  Well, I’ll tell you with first-hand experience.  To summarize in a few words: I’ve been happy and confident I’m following His will.

Without the Mass we might think we would be lost, but no, not so.  It is true that at Mass, the priest does act “in the person of Christ” (as the theologians say), and Christ then acts as our Mediator with God.   But many of us somewhat took advantage of that (while we still had Mass), and we let the priest “do all the work”.   Now, without the Mass and the priest, our relationship with Our Lord has to be one-on-One. 

God sent us the current circumstances in which we need to speak directly to God without a priest who stands in place of Christ for us.  As God sent us these circumstances and Wills that we be in them for His glory and our salvation, this circumstance can make us feel so much closer to Him.  He can feel like a part of us now as never before.

Without that weekly Confession available, we can have a much greater understanding of just how evil sin is, and how it hurts Our Lord – because we can’t confess every week and “start over, no problem”.  We can now realize it is far better not to sin even in the smallest way (i.e., venial sin), and we can do this with God’s help, because we’re now much closer to Our Lord one-on-One.

Without weekly reception of Our Lord in Holy Communion, it would seem to be a real loss, but we can make up in a special way with frequent, very slow and devout Spiritual Communions at least four times per day.  Doing this, it is twenty-eight Spiritual Communions per week vs. one “Sunday Catholic” Sacramental Communion.  The many Spiritual Communions can bring us closer to Our Lord when said with devotion and love.

Also, with the Mass on Sunday, compensation comes from reading each word from our missals with greater devotion and understanding, rather than attending a Mass expecting the priest to do most of the understanding and devotion.

The above four things we can willingly do without, for the Love of God.  Of course, the Mass and the Sacraments are an infinite treasure, which we should ardently long to receive when God sends them to us.  However, it is incomparably better to be in the catacombs with Him, but without the Mass and Sacraments, than to sin by attending compromise Masses and receiving compromise Sacraments!

We know also, sadly, that there are other things – like the beautiful liturgical music at Mass and parish devotions.  Plus, social parish gatherings, etc.  However, Our Lord will more than compensate for loss of these, with many spiritual graces.  He is never outdone in generosity!

To be sure, there are, unfortunately, only a few like-minded traditional Catholics in the catacombs, but their friendship is strong and loving.  The good Lord has always provided – and will continue to provide – what is needed for those who stand up for Him.  Bet on it!

 

Lesson #11 The Principle and Foundation – Part II

Posted on by Catholic Candle

                    Mary’s School of Sanctity                   

St. Ignatius says,

Man is created to praise, reverence, and serve God Our Lord, and by this means to save his soul.  All other things on the face of the earth are created for man to help him fulfill the end for which he is created.  From this it follows that man is to use these things to the extent that they will help him to attain his end.  Likewise, he must rid himself of them in so far as they prevent him from attaining it.

Therefore, we must make ourselves indifferent to all created things, in so far as it is left to the choice of our free will and is not forbidden.  Acting accordingly, for our part, we should not prefer health to sickness, riches to poverty, honor to dishonor, a long life to a short one, and so in all things we should desire and choose only those things which will best help attain the end for which we are created.

In our last lesson we considered the end of man, which is to give glory to God Our Creator.  (This end is set forth in the first paragraph above.)  We discussed how one can meditate on this first paragraph examining what service we owe to God Who is so great and good to us.  

Now we will consider the rest of the first paragraph concerning our proper use of creatures, and the second paragraph which pertains to the holy detachment that God wants us to have concerning creatures.  Basically, Lesson #10 is the first part of the meditation on the Principle and Foundation, and this current Lesson #11 is the second part of the same meditation on the Principle and Foundation. 

This meditation is so rich in materials for consideration that this second part can be addressed in two subparts.  As we mentioned before, in Lesson #10, this meditation on the Principle and Foundation is so extremely important for our salvation that we can meditate upon it very often.  This is because St. Ignatius’s principle here must set the tone for our entire outlook on life. 

But how does one meditate on these two Ignatian paragraphs quoted above?  By carefully analyzing St. Ignatius’s two paragraphs to find out what he means.  By analyzing what he says and applying what he says to our own conduct, we can learn about ourselves and what our priorities have been in our life so far.  We can also learn to amend our priorities as needed in order to serve God in a way that is most pleasing to Him.  St. Ignatius has us begin by studying creatures, the use of which, are a means to our eternal salvation (and the misuse of which, to our everlasting damnation).

There are many aspects that we can discuss concerning man’s usage of creatures. We know from the Book of Genesis that creatures were created for the needs and use of man.  Man was given dominion over all the material creatures. We must not forget that besides these creatures, there are immaterial creatures, e.g., time and the angels.  Even though man does not have dominion over time or the angels, he can still make use of them.  St. Ignatius says above, “All other things on the face of the earth are created for man to help him fulfill the end for which he is created.”


Creatures help man attain his last end.

Creatures help man in the following ways:

❖  by instruction,

❖  by example,

❖  by use,

❖  by sacrifice, and

❖  by being a source of crosses.

They help man by instruction because creatures show us God’s omnipotence when we consider them.  Creatures show how great God is by their vastness and variety, their beauty, and their order.  We can clearly see God’s greatness and majesty.  We can likewise see how we owe God praise for His wondrous works of nature.

They help by example because they faithfully serve God by doing what He intended for them to do.  We see that we need to do the same.   

They help by use because we obviously need to use them to sustain our life and our duties, e.g., for health, nourishment, and strength.

They help by sacrifice because man can use them in the practice of religion and as objects of self-denial when man offers up using them as a means of detachment and penance.

They help by being the source of crosses, e.g., sicknesses, accidents, etc. [1]


We can examine how we have used creatures.

Unfortunately, we do not use creatures as we should.  This is precisely because we do not keep St. Ignatius’s rule in mind that if the creature is not good for our eternal end, we should reject it.  Is this because we simply do not take our last end seriously enough?   St. Ignatius would say, “Yes!”  We tend to yield to our passions which seek sensual comforts.  Here are some questions to keep in mind when assessing how well we have used creatures:

➢  What view do I take of creatures? 

➢  Do I perhaps look upon them as my property, of which, as a master, I can dispose at pleasure and not as a benefice or alms from God?

➢  Do I regard them as an end, and not merely as a means to reach my end?

 

➢  Do I consider them as “talents” of the use of which I must give an exact account to my Lord and Creator?

 

➢  What rule or direction do I follow in the use of creatures? 

 

➢  Do I use them simply at my pleasure?

 

➢  Do I allow myself to be led by sensuality? 

 

➢  Do I adhere to St. Ignatius’ words “he must rid himself of them in so far as”?  That is, do I reflect whether they are useful or hurtful to my calling, to my destiny [or duty of state]?

 

➢  Do I ask myself what good I derive from all the disagreeable happenings that befall me, since God permitted them especially for my benefit or straightway sent them Himself?[2]

In the light of this meditation, we come to realize that we are guilty of manifold abuses of creatures.  Let us repent of it; and in the future let us plan and strive to use the world round about us to our true spiritual advantage.  “To them that love God, all things work together unto good!” [Romans 8:28][3]

What St. Ignatius means by Holy Indifference.

Now let us delve into what St. Ignatius teaches us in his second paragraph (quoted above).  He wants us to grasp the concept of holy indifference to creatures.  We must use our reason, led by our Faith, so that all we do and all of the choices we make are pleasing to God, and will lead to our salvation.  

God put creatures in our lives as means to be used in His service, to be conducive to our salvation and not to be a hindrance.  We must consider each creature we come in contact with and use it appropriately.  In order to do this efficaciously, we must be detached from creatures. “For if we are inclined to one thing or to another beforehand, and are too much attached to it, then this too-great attachment will hinder us from readily giving ourselves up to do what reason, Faith, and God command.”[4] 

For if our calling is to serve God, and creatures are but means to this end, reason demands that in the choice and use of them we should not be determined by their beauty and attractiveness, but solely by their usefulness as means to an end.

Hence, we should not be predisposed in favor of any creature, because this predisposition has an influence upon our choice and misleads us to make imprudent selections.  We must cut loose from creatures and be free from bias, so that only their adaptability or the will of God may be the guide in our selection of them.[5]

We do not accept the sufferings and difficulties that God permits in our lives or we generally do not accept them with perfect unselfishness.  The reason for this is that we lack indifference.  We must want to do God’s Will.  When something happens to us which is beyond our control, then we know it is the Will of God for us.  God wants us to accept events in a truly sacrificial manner and without complaint.  Furthermore, He expects us to use our reason in dealing with circumstances.

A religious complained to St. Francis de Sales about the many crosses she had to carry. “Do you know how the cross is made?” asked the saint.  “Take two little pieces of wood, lay one parallel upon the other – no cross.  But lay one piece across the other and the cross is made.  So in like manner when our will conforms to the Will of God – when it is opposed to the Will of God, when we murmur and complain – the cross is ready.  If we wish to escape the cross, then we must conform our will to the Will of God.[6]

We practice this indifference by accepting circumstances which are out of our control and by keeping ourselves detached from creatures, not complaining if they are taken from us.  In this way we acknowledge that our lives and everything in them are in the Hands of God and we simply trust in His Providence.  We remind ourselves that, “For to them that love God all things work together unto good.”


The advantages of indifference

Some basic advantages for practicing holy indifference are:

·         true peace;

·         joy; and

·         the practice of virtue becomes easy.

The mind so disposed with indifference has true peace and permanent rest of the heart.  For, come what may, it recognizes in all things the Will of God, and by doing that will it attains to its destiny.

It has not only peace but joy, for we know that “all things work unto good for those that love God,” so that from all things we can derive advantages.

This disposition of mind makes easy our efforts to acquire virtue and perfection.  When our attachment to creatures is excessive, it becomes more difficult to make the sacrifice which God’s service calls for.[7]


We can examine our level of indifference

❖  About what do I principally complain and murmur?  There, indifference is wanting; when we murmur about something, we can say to ourselves: “I caught myself in the act of being too attached to a creature”.

❖  Is my will prepared for all that God is likely to ask of me, or to choose for me?  (However, don’t waste time daydreaming about every possible situation God might send to us.)

❖  Is my heart too passionately attached to something, to a creature, to an occupation, to an office or position, so that the separation would be at the cost of a hard struggle?  I will begin even now to disengage my heart, that the possible sacrifice be not too bitter for me.[8]

Now that we have examined St. Ignatius’s concept of holy indifference and how we certainly need to improve in using it for our sanctification, we must not think we are finished with the work of self-reflection.

Some additional questions we can use to examine our use of creatures

Here are some additional points of self-reflection:

➢  How am I using creatures?

➢  What is my attitude toward creatures – from the lowest – air, food, clothing, shelter; to the highest angels, saints and the Queen of Angels and saints?

➢  Am I using all of these creatures well and in the manner in which God intends?

➢  Do I view the lowest creatures for what they really are, or do I use them as if they are something higher than what they are?

➢  How do I use Mary?  She is a special creature and gift of God created to help me.  Do I consult with her? Do I ever talk with her throughout the day and ask her help to reason better?

All of these points and the self-examining questions posited here are the heart of the meditation on the Principle and Foundation.  In fact, this meditation is a reflection upon what we owe to God in justice and how we ought to serve Him.  A crucial part of the service we owe to God is how we are employed in using the creatures that He put at our disposal.  Thus, this meditation involves a self-examination in how well we are doing what we ought to do.

When we do this long two-part meditation, it is best to focus on the point or aspect that strikes us the most and sparks a real flame in our soul.  This spark of desire is meant to help us tell God that we love Him and to tell Him that we need His all-powerful assistance. 

The fruit of this meditation is the heart-to-heart talk that we have with God.  We may find ourselves making all four kinds of prayer, adoration, thanksgiving, reparation, and petition.  

We close our meditation time with some prayers of thanksgiving to God for assisting us in our meditation and with making firm resolutions to use creatures better in the future and/or in practicing holy indifference.

Of course, we should not forget to write down any insights given to us and to examine how much effort we put into our meditation.

In our next lesson we will discuss St. Ignatius’s 1st exercise on sin.


[1]           Considerations taken from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, ©1918, third edition 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, pages 9-15.

 

[2]           Considerations taken from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, ©1918, third edition 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, pages 16-17.

 

[3]           Considerations taken from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, ©1918, third edition 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, page 17.

 

[4]           Considerations taken from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck ©1918, third edition 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, page 21.

 

[5]           Considerations taken from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck ©1918, third edition 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, page 22.

 

[6]           Considerations taken from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck ©1918, third edition 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, page 23.

 

[7]           Considerations taken from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck ©1918, third edition 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, page 24.

 

[8]           Considerations taken from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, ©1918, third edition 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, page 25.

 

The Feminist Program is the same as that of Satan and Marx – Part IV

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note:

In February 2022, Catholic Candle began a multi-part examination of how the feminists follow the same program as Satan and Marx.  This article is entitled The Feminist Program is the same as that of Satan and Marx.  

Part 1 analyzes Satan’s program and begins to analyze how Marx has the same program.  Part 1 can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/02/24/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx/.  

Part 2 completes the analysis showing how Marx’s program is the same as Satan’s program.  Part 2 can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/03/27/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-ii/.  

As shown in those first two parts of this article, Satan’s and Marx’s eight-point program:

  1. Is anti-God (and anti-worship of God);
  2. Promotes disobedience and opposition to the authority ordained by God;
  3. Seeks to divide people;

  1. Promotes discontent, envy, and discord;

  1. Promotes hatred;

  1. Is result-oriented and self-interested; Satan neither acts according to immutable principles nor encourages his followers to do so;

  1. Is full of lies; and

  1. Is against Nature and is anti-Natural Law.

Last month, Catholic Candle published Part 3 of this series.  Part 3 begins the study of modern feminism and feminist leaders to see how they follow this same satanic and Marxist program.  Part 3 shows how feminism and feminist leaders are anti-God and anti-worship of God.  This article can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/04/20/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-iii/.


Part 4


(Continuing where we left off last month)

This month, we cover three of the aspects of how the feminist leaders and feminist principles follow Satan’s and Marx’s program:

  1. They promote disobedience, revolt, and opposition to the authority ordained by God;
  2. They seek to divide people; and
  3. They promote discontent, envy, and discord.

Below we examine each of these parts of the satanic, Marxist, feminist program.

  1. The feminist leaders and feminist principles are revolutionary and are against the authority ordained by God.

Modern feminist leaders are the “spiritual daughters” of Karl Marx (as well as Satan).  Here is how one secular feminist leader described the feminist program at the 1852 Woman’s Rights Convention:

My friends, do we realize for what purpose we are convened?  Do we fully understand that we aim at nothing less than an entire subversion of the present order of society, a dissolution of the whole existing social compact?[1]

This feminist leader echoes Marx when he declares that communism aims at “overthrow of all existing social conditions”.[2] 

This feminist aim of “subversion” (i.e., “dissolution”) of present society is shown by feminists when they describe their movement as “the feminist revolution.”[3]

It would be false and naïve to think that by promoting feminism, the Marxists (or Satan) really care about women, any more than they really care about other groups who are pawns in their game.  Instead, the Marxists are focused on achieving their evil goals.  They are not looking to give women “choices”, if those choices include seeking that which is traditional or according to the Natural Law.  

Here, for example, are the candid words of one secular feminist writer, Simone de Beauvoir, in an interview with another secular feminist leader, Betty Friedan, in which Beauvoir declared that their aim is a totalitarian system which inflicts compulsion on women (as well as men):

No, we do not believe that any woman should have this choice.  No woman should be authorized to stay home to raise her children.  Society should be totally different.  Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.[4]

Instead of “advocating” for women and giving them “choices”, feminists are rebelling against patriarchy, i.e., against authority.  Here is how one feminist leader, Mary Daly, framed feminism’s total opposition to, and rebellion against, patriarchy:  

Almost everything has been stolen from us by the patriarchy.  Our creativity has been stolen, our creative energies, our religion [viz., the goddess religion]. I want it back.[5]

Feminist leader, Kate Millett, and other feminist leaders would sometimes open their “women’s empowerment” meetings by focusing those in attendance on the principle that the enemy was “patriarchy” and their goal was revolution.  Here is one eyewitness account of the ritual exchange at the opening of one of these meetings:

“Why are we here today?” she [i.e., Kate Millett] asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“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,” …[6]

This war on patriarchy includes rebelling against God Himself, since He is a Father and the model of all fathers.  He is also the Power Itself and the Authority Itself behind all authority and all fatherhood.

Further, feminism’s war against patriarchy includes warring against the Catholic Church and Sacred Scripture, since they uphold the Natural Law principle that the husband is the head of the family and his wife must obey him.  Here is one of the ways that St. Paul states this truth:

Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church.  He is the Savior of His Body.  Therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be, to their husbands in all things.

Ephesians, 5:22-24.


Conclusion of this Part

It is clear that feminism and feminist leaders seek revolution and rebel against God’s authority and against the authority of God’s representatives on earth, especially fathers (i.e., patriarchs).  

Thus, we see that the feminist leaders and feminist principles follow the second point of Satan’s and Marx’s program: viz., promoting disobedience and opposition to the authority ordained by God.
        

  1. The feminist leaders and feminist principles seek to divide people.

Feminist leaders and their principles seek to divide people.  They set one group against another.  This is a classic Marxist (as well as a satanic) tactic, as we saw earlier in this multipart article.

One way feminists seek to divide groups of people is by name-calling.  They call men “sexists”, “male chauvinists”[7], and “misogynists”[8].  They describe the traditional family as “domestic slavery” for the wife and mother, in which she (supposedly) suffers “social oppression” and “economic oppression”.[9] 

One secular feminist leader, Simone De Beauvoir, showed that such characterizations are merely a tactical attempt to win sympathy for the feminist movement from the gullible and naïve.  Although De Beauvoir does indeed call the family “domestic slavery”, she candidly expressed her concern that so many women want to live the life of a wife and mother in a traditional family.  (This is not surprising, since this is the natural role God created them to have.)  Here are De Beauvoir’s words:

No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children.  Society should be totally different.  Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.[10]

Although the feminist movement can sway many fuzzy-thinking people, nature is a strong force and the feminists must constantly remind women that they are “victims”, in order to try to prevent them from choosing this traditional, God-given vocation.  Thus, these feminists must work hard to remind women they are “oppressed” by men, i.e., by patriarchy.  Here is how secular feminist, Kate Millett put it:

A sexual revolution begins with the emancipation of women, who are the chief victims of patriarchy ….[11]

As we saw earlier in this multipart article, Marx and Satan have always promoted their goals in terms of “liberating” and “freedom”.  As we see, the feminist movement is no exception.

Phyllis Schlafly, the astute anti-feminist founder of Eagle Forum, remarked that:

The feminist movement taught women to see themselves as victims of an oppressive patriarchy.  …  Self-imposed victimhood is not a recipe for happiness.[12]

Indeed, as Mrs. Schlafly observes, Marxist “victimhood” never brings happiness.  But notice that neither Satan, nor Marx, nor the modern feminists state that happiness is one of their goals.  Instead, their goals are power and “liberation” (which, in one way or another, means rebelling against the authority established by God) so that they can be “powerful” and can “be as gods”.  Genesis, 3:5.

Patriarchy, properly understood, means men meeting their vocational responsibilities selflessly, as Christ gave Himself for His Body, the Church.[13]  This is beautiful and sublime.  Plainly, this is nothing Satan, Marx, or the modern feminist leaders would ever want.  

In feminism, this war against authority is framed as a war of women against the other group, viz., men.  It is framed as women fighting for “liberation” against patriarchy, i.e., against men meeting their vocational responsibilities to lead their families and/or to lead various aspects of religious and civil society for the good of the group they lead.  So modern feminists declare their fight is to destroy patriarchs[14] and patriarchy.[15] 

  1. Like Satan and Marx, feminism promotes discontent, envy, and discord.

Feminists spurn femininity as well as all of the particular qualities and characteristics of a woman.  Although feminists oppose real men, feminists imitate the masculine aspects of creation.  They seek complete egalitarianism[16] between men and women based on the natural characteristics of men.  In this way, they take masculinity as their aspiration and model.

One illustration of this is located on LinkedIn.com (the business “social” media website).  While browsing through this website, one can observe the adjectives used to describe women who are managers and executives.  A great many of these descriptions assert that the woman is “strong” or “powerful”.  Why is this?  It is in order to claim that those women have just as much of this masculine trait as the men do.  Do the men’s profiles say this too?  No.  Few or none of them do.  The men’s profiles don’t need to say “I am like a man”.  But these members of the “weaker sex” want the world to believe that they are as strong as the “stronger sex”.

In 1917, Pope Benedict XV deplored the evil practice in modern society that women:

take up occupations ill-befitting their sex, took to imitating men; others abandoned the duties of the house-wife, for which they were fashioned, to cast themselves recklessly into the current of life.[17]

One of the ways that feminism inherently promotes discontentment and envy is by causing women to desire that which for them is impossible, i.e., to be just like a male.  However hard they try, theirs will be a poor, failed-attempt to be male.  Theirs is the same unhappy path of discontentment trodden by a man who is “transgender” and is trying to convince himself that he is female – a change which is impossible and delusional.

In a section of this article above, we saw how modern feminists divide women from men by constantly emphasizing that men are opposed to them.  This feminist “gospel” of division also effectively makes women discontented because they continually hear that they are “oppressed”, “enslaved”, and that they are victims of men.[18]  Feminists tell women that they need emancipation from patriarchy[19] and even that patriarchy is a form of terrorism waged against them![20]

The women’s discontent and envy are an important goal for Satan, Marx, and the feminist leaders.  For if women are content and happy, they will not be “apostles” of rage, protesting, fighting for feminism and other satanic causes.  Instead, they will be suitable for God to mold into the members of the Catholic Church and into His friends and citizens of heaven.  But this is exactly the opposite of what Satan wishes.

Next month, we will examine how the feminist leaders and feminist principles follow the fifth point of Satan’s and Marx’s program by promoting hatred.

To be continued next month …

[1]          From Manfred Hauke, God or Goddess? Feminist Theology: What Is It? Where Does It Lead? (Ignatius Press, 1995), p.79, quoting convention speaker, Elizabeth Oakes Smith.

[2]          The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, published in 1848 (emphasis added).

[3]          One of countless examples of feminist leaders referring to their “revolution”, is when Mary Daly declared: “Courage to be is the key to revelatory power of the feminist revolution.”  https://www.quotes.pub/q/courage-to-be-is-the-key-to-revelatory-power-of-the-feminist-205124 (italic emphasis added).

[4]          Manfred Hauke, God or Goddess? Feminist Theology: What Is It? Where Does It Lead? (Ignatius Press, 1995), p.57 (emphasis added).

[5]          Words of Mary Daly, found here: https://quotesguru.org/mary-daly-quotes/  (bracketed comment added to show context).

[6]         https://mallorymillett.com/?p=37 (bracketed words added to show context).

[7]          “Chauvinism” is the unreasonable belief in the superiority or dominance of one's own group or people, who are seen as strong and virtuous, while others are considered weak, unworthy, or inferior.

[8]          A misogynist is “one who hates or mistrusts women.

[9]          See, e.g., The Second Sex, by secular feminist leader, Simone De Beauvoir, Vintage Books, New York, pages 88-89 (bracketed word and a semicolon added for improved clarity).  Here is the longer quote:

This is the advent of the patriarchal family founded on private property.  In such a family woman is oppressed.  Man reigning sovereign permits himself, among other things, his sexual whims: he sleeps with slaves or courtesans, he is polygamous.  As soon as customs make reciprocity possible, woman takes revenge through infidelity: adultery becomes a natural part of marriage.  This is the only defense woman has against the domestic slavery; [that] she is bound to her social oppression is the consequence of her economic oppression.

[10]          Simone de Beauvoir, interviewed by secular feminist, Betty Freidan, published in the Saturday Review, June 14, 1974, p. 18 (emphasis added).

[11]         Words of Kate Millett, found here: Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/patriarchy-quotes

[12]          Quote from Eagle Forum Founder, Phyllis Schlafly, found here: https://www.quotemaster.org/q76bfbcd7f12c5e2bf6d9a15f7f8c1494

[13]          “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered Himself up for it”.  Ephesians, 5:25.

[14]
         As shown earlier in this multipart article, secular feminist leader, Kate Millett, sought to destroy the family by destroying the patriarch, i.e., the man protecting his family.  Here is part of the chant she used to open their “women’s empowerment” 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,”

https://mallorymillett.com/?p=37 (emphasis added).

[15]         Here is one way religious feminist, Mary Daly, framed women’s fight against men and their patriarchy:

I urge you to sin.  But not against these itty-bitty religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism – or their secular derivatives, Marxism, Maoism, Freudianism and Jungianism – which are all derivatives of the big religion of patriarchy.  Sin against the infrastructure itself!

Quote from former nun and apostate Catholic, Mary Daly, found here: https://www.quotemaster.org/q553ec7a243f69bb2f969cbd6bd5e3d1b

In Mary Daly’s call to sin, can anyone fail to notice the stench of Satan?

[16]          Egalitarianism is defined as “a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs.”

[17]         Pope Benedict XV, Encyclical Natalis trecentesimi, (Woman in the Modern World), December, 27 1917 (bracketed word added to show the context).

 

[18]          Here is one way that secular feminist leader Simone De Beauvoir emphasized the downtrodden state of women:

This is the advent of the patriarchal family founded on private property.  In such a family woman is oppressed.  Man reigning sovereign permits himself, among other things, his sexual whims: he sleeps with slaves or courtesans, he is polygamous.  As soon as customs make reciprocity possible, woman takes revenge through infidelity: adultery becomes a natural part of marriage.  This is the only defense woman has against the domestic slavery; [that] she is bound to her social oppression is the consequence of her economic oppression.

The Second Sex, Simone De Beauvoir, Vintage Books, New York, pages 88-89.

[19]         Here is how secular feminist leader, Kate Millett put it:

A sexual revolution begins with the emancipation of women, who are the chief victims of patriarchy ….

Words of Kate Millett, found here: Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/patriarchy-quotes

[20]          Here is how the secular feminist bell hooks (who is a woman who employed the gimmick of spelling her name without initial capital letters) strung together a laughable series of adjectives to characterize men, including that they are terrorists:

Often in my lectures when I use the phrase “an imperialist, white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy” to describe our nation’s political system, audiences laugh.  No one has ever explained why accurately naming this system is funny.  The laughter is itself a weapon of patriarchal terrorism.

Quote from bell hooks, found here: https://www.quotemaster.org/qd1b9809d204b3a0926962163ecf22929 (emphasis added).

What Special Help from God Most Don’t Take Advantage Of?

Posted on by Catholic Candle

It is our Guardian Angel.  A special Angel is assigned to us by God to help us in all ways – from our birth to our death.  This is such a significant help for our salvation that it would seem to be a sin of negligence to ignore his help (as well as a sin of ingratitude to God).

It also demonstrates how a loving God and Creator looks after us in every way possible.  This is important because one of the wounds of Original Sin is that man is inclined toward evil.  It is said that Lucifer assigns a devil to every person at birth.  Regardless of whether or not Lucifer does this, one thing is clear: man in his weakened condition is in dire need of the divine assistance that God, in His fatherly care for us, provides.

By God’s providence Angels have been entrusted with the office of guarding the human race and of accompanying every human being so as to preserve him from any serious dangers.  Just as parents whose children are about to travel a dangerous and infested road, appoint guardians and helpers for them, so also in the journey we are making towards our heavenly country, our heavenly Father has placed over each of us an Angel under whose protection and vigilance we may be enabled to escape the snares secretly prepared by our enemy, repel the dreadful attacks he makes on us, and under his guiding hand keep the right road, and thus be secure against all false steps which the wiles of the evil one might cause us to make in order to draw us aside from the path that leads to heaven.[1]

We read many examples in the Bible in which Angels wrought wondrous miracles right before our eyes.  This leads us to consider what other wonders they perform of which we are unaware.

Whoever we are, wherever we are, each of us has always a Guardian Angel at our side.  He sees everything we do: both good and evil.  We should always be very careful not to offend or hurt him.  We should pray to him often, especially in temptation or danger.[2]

 In what way do our Guardian Angels help us?

Our Guardian Angels help us by praying for us, by protecting us from harm, and by inspiring us to do good.  Our Guardian Angels are given special care of us, watching over each from birth to death.  We should always love and pray to our Guardian Angel who never leaves our side.  The Church celebrates the Feast of the Guardian Angels on October 2nd.

Our Guardian Angels suggest good and holy thoughts, and help to incline our wills to what is good.  They protect us in dangers of soul and body.  They offer our prayers and good works to God.  They pray for us.  They help us in our work and needs.  “He hath given His Angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways” (Ps. 90:11).  For instance, Angels kept Daniel safe in the lions’ den, and the three young men in the fiery furnace.  We often hear of little children meeting with accidents and escaping unhurt.  But the chief work of our Guardian Angels is to keep us safe from the devil.[3]  

Our Guardian Angel wants to fulfill his assignment as often and as much as possible.  He loves God and wants to do as God commands.  So, take advantage of God’s gift in every aspect of your life on the “road” to eternal salvation.  Don’t believe that your Guardian Angel would not want to help in this or that situation because it is so insignificant and small.  No, he wants to help in all situations, large or small.  So, start the day by reciting this prayer:

Angel of God, my guardian dear, to whom God’s love commits me here.  Ever this day, be at my side, to light, to guard, to rule and guide.  Amen

Let him help you avoid distraction in your prayers, become humble, persevere in prayer, and increase your love for God.  Let him help you in anything you need, to make you a better person, always living according to God’s will.

Lastly, it’s all very good to depend on your Guardian Angel, but the good Lord expects you to do your part in everyday safety in driving, walking, riding, etc. 

Below are two small devotions we recommend you use daily.


TO THE HOLY ANGELS                                       

Bless the Lord, all you His Angels.
You who are mighty in strength and do His will,
Intercede for me at the throne of God.
By your unceasing watchfulness
protect me in every danger of soul and body.
Obtain for me the grace of final perseverance,
so that after this life I may be admitted
to your glorious company and with you may sing
the praises of God for all eternity.[4]


ANGELS AT OUR SIDE

Hand in hand with Angels
Through the world we go.
Brighter eyes are on us
Than we blind ones know.
Sweeter voices cheer us
Than we deaf will own.
Never, walking heav’nward
Do we walk alone.
Hand in hand with Angels
In the busy street,
Home, or school, or office
Everywhere we meet.
Wondrous shining spirits
Straight from paradise,
Ever bending on us
Watchful, loving eyes.
Shielding us in danger,
Keeping us from sin,
Helping us each moment
Heaven’s crown to win.[5]

Angel Raphael and Tobias


[1]           Catechism of the Council of Trent, Section: The Lord’s Prayer, subsection: Our Father Who Art In Heaven.

[2]           My Catholic Faith, Bishop Louis Morrow, My Mission House, Kenosha, WI, ©1949, page 30.

 

[3]           My Catholic Faith, Bishop Louis Morrow, My Mission House, Kenosha, WI, ©1949, page 31.

[4]           Author Unknown.

[5]           Author Unknown.

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Words to Live by – from Catholic Tradition

 

If you say that you cannot suffer much, how will you endure the fire of purgatory?  Of two evils, the lesser is always to be chosen.  Therefore, in order that you may escape the everlasting punishments to come, try to bear present evils patiently for the sake of God.

 

Imitation of Christ, Thomas à Kempis, Book 3, Chapter 12.