Women should Wear Dresses and Skirts, Not Pants – Part 4

  • Catholic Candle note: The article below is part 4 of an article showing that women should wear dresses and skirts and not pants.

     

    Recap of the first part of the article

     

    In part one of this article, we saw five reasons why men (as well as women) need to understand the Catholic standards of modesty for women (and men).

    The article then lists four reasons why women should not wear pants:

     

    1.    It is objectively a sin against the revealed Divine Law for a woman to wear pants;

    2.    It is objectively a sin of lewdness[1] under the Natural Law for a woman to wear pants, even apart from the issue of pants being more revealing of a woman’s body;

     

    3.    A woman who wears pants objectively commits a sin of feminist usurpation of man’s role and “nature” and denial of her own “nature” and role in God’s plan; and

    4.    A woman wearing pants objectively sins because pants are immodest for her due to their revealing too much of her figure.

     

    Then the article looks at the first of those reasons.  The first part of which is found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/02/19/women-should-wear-dresses-and-skirts-not-pants/

    Recap of the second part of the article

    In part two of this article, we saw the second reason why women and girls should wear skirts and dresses and not pants: viz., because it is objectively a sin of lewdness[1] under the Natural Law for a woman to wear pants, even apart from the issue of pants being more revealing of a woman’s body.  The second part of this article is found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/03/21/women-should-wear-dresses-and-skirts-not-pants-part-2/


    Recap of the third part of the article

    In part three of this article, we saw the third reason why women and girls should wear skirts and dresses and not pants: viz., a woman who wears pants objectively commits a sin of feminist usurpation of man’s role and “nature” and denial of her own “nature” and role in God’s plan.  The third part of this article is found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/04/17/women-should-wear-dresses-and-skirts-not-pants-part-3/

    This article is a companion article to our article about Mary-like Neckline Modesty, which can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2023/05/21/marylike-neckline-modesty/

    These articles apply to girls as well as women and assist them in fulfilling the role and great work for which God created women.  Read more about this role and great work here: https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/02/the-role-and-work-that-god-gave-to-woman/

    Women should Wear Dresses and Skirts, Not Pants – Part 4

    4.     A woman wearing pants also sins because pants are immodest for her due to their revealing too much of her figure.

    Let’s start this section with a recap to see the connection between rebellion and immodesty:

    Recap of the Three Types of Rebellion Present When Women Wear Pants

    The devil is the inventor of sin, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches.[1]  The devil is the first revolutionary and his battle cry is “non serviam!”  We see Satan’s rebellious spirit in his inducing women to wear pants:

      He leads their rebellion against God, getting them to wear men’s clothes against the revealed Divine Law.  Deuteronomy, 22:5.

      He leads their rebellion against Nature (getting them to wear men’s clothes) against the Natural Law.  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.169, a.2, ad 3.

      He leads their rebellion against men’s authority (getting women to wear men’s clothes) as a feminist rebellion against living the role in life that God intends for women.

    But rebellion is only one of Satan’s favorite weapons.  Immodesty is the other.


    Satan Promotes Immodesty at the Same Time, Using These Rebellions

    Considering that Satan chooses women wearing pants as a tool of rebellion, we would expect (even before looking into the issue) that Satan’s tactics would not only foment rebellion but would also promote impurity, since impurity, like disobedience, is one of the most common sins that Satan promotes. 

    Satan knows what Our Lady warned at Fatima that “more people go to hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason.”[2]  Thus, Satan promotes impurity because he knows impurity is such an effective tool for damning souls.

    Upon reflection, we see that our preliminary expectation is correct that Satan’s tool of women wearing pants combines the sin of rebellion with the sin of immodesty because pants are too revealing of a woman’s body.   

    Let us now look at this issue of pants being immodest on a woman.


    Different Dangers for Men and Women Regarding Impurity

    Men and women are different and possess different tendencies towards impurity.  Men are more easily led into sins against purity through their sense of sight.  For this reason, modesty for men chiefly requires custody of their eyes as the guard of purity. 

    By contrast, women are more tempted in matters of impurity through vanity by seeking to attract the eyes of men by excessive exposure of their (viz., the women’s) bodies.  Thus, it is in the “nature” of women that they are more interested in being admired by men for their appearance rather than admiring men’s appearance.  That is why also, that men are more interested in the appearance of women than they are interested in women admiring their appearance.

    Of course, this does not mean that men should be unconcerned with the modesty of their own dress or that women should be unconcerned with custody of their eyes.  But the stronger, typical tendencies are for men to encounter dangers against purity because of looking at women, and women to encounter dangers against purity by the way they seek to attract men’s eyes by their appearance.  These different tendencies of the two sexes are why men are the usual consumers of pornography and women are the usual subjects of pornography.

    Further, God made woman the more beautiful and attractive sex, and He made women’s bodies more sensual.  Thus, the virtue of modesty requires that this greater attractiveness be concealed with womanly attire, which takes Nature into account.  So, women must wear clothes which cover up more.  They must wear loose-fitting dresses and skirts. 


    Three Ways Pants are Immodest for Women

    Pants reveal too much of a woman’s figure because:

    v  Pants make a woman’s legs more visibly defined.  A dress, compared to pants, fits the lower body in a way similar to how a mitten fits a hand, compared to a glove.  Plainly, a glove reveals more of the hand’s shape. 

    (This importance of a woman concealing her feminine silhouette is also the chief reason why modesty requires her to wear a slip under her dress, viz., to avoid the outline of her legs being visible.)

      Pants “allow daylight” (to show between her legs) all of the way up to her private parts.
     

      Pants also reveal more of the contours of a woman’s backside than does a dress or skirt.

    So, because women are obliged to dress in a manner that conceals the contours of their bodies, rather than reveals them, this is why they must wear dresses and skirts, not pants. 


    Answers to Six Objections

    There now remains only for us to answer six objections to this key moral principle (viz., that women should wear dresses or skirts, and not pants):

    1.    Objection:  A person could object that some (so-called) “modest” pants can be permissible because they conceal more of a woman’s figure than do “some skirts”. 

    Response:  This “justification” only shows that there are some skirts which are immodest also and should never be worn.  Further, although a woman should never wear an immodest skirt, nonetheless, such a skirt does not involve her committing the sins of rebellion which occur in wearing men’s clothes.


    2.    Objection:  Couldn’t we say that our modern society has now accepted women wearing pants so that pants have become women’s clothes (as well as men’s clothes)? 

    Response:  No.  As we already saw above, pants were not generally accepted by society as “women’s clothes” until relatively recently, when society got sufficiently corrupt so as to accept women wearing pants.  This was in the same period in which society began to accept various other evils (e.g., tattoos[3], cremation[4], rock and roll “music”, and wives and mothers being career women[5]), all of which showed and promoted the degenerateness of society.

     

    But what is accepted by a corrupt society is not the proper measure by which we should make the determination what is acceptable.  Here is one way that Pope Pius XII teaches this truth:

    [A] garment must not be evaluated according to the estimation of a decadent or already-corrupt society, but according to the aspirations of a society which prizes the dignity and seriousness of its public attire.[6]

    3.    Objection:  A person could say that women wearing pants is “no big deal” and that “I’m used to it”.

     

    Response:  Such excuse merely shows that the person has become used to sin and has suffered some moral taint.  Here is one way that Pope Pius XII warned against this attitude:

    The most insidious of sophisms, which are usually repeated to justify immodesty, seems to be the same everywhere.  One of these resurrects the ancient saying “let there be no argument about things we are accustomed to”, in order to brand as old fashioned the rebellion of honest people against fashions which are too bold ….[7]

    4.    Objection:  Suppose a woman has duties which “require” her to perform activities for which a dress is immodest because the wind blows her dress upwards, or she is on a ladder cleaning, or because of the way she “must” move her limbs during such activity.

    Response:  It might be that some activities would require a dress that is longer or of heavier fabric than modesty requires for other activities.  But there are no activities which a woman should perform which cannot be done under appropriate conditions and wearing modest and womanly clothes.  Furthermore, all activities suited for women have been performed in earlier generations, by good women in dresses or skirts.

    5.    Objection:  “But where I live it gets so cold in the winter!  So. I ‘need’ to wear pants to stay warm.”

    Response:  Cold weather is not a new phenomenon and winter is not a new invention.  Throughout the history of mankind, women have dressed modestly, in womanly clothes, and stayed warm.  But, of course, warm, womanly undergarments will help accomplish this, as well as long winter coats and dresses made of thick fabrics suitable for the season.

    6.   Objection: There can’t be anything wrong with a woman wearing pants when she is alone, when no one will see her.

     

    Response: 1) Notice that God’s Commandment in Deuteronomy does not forbid cross-dressing only when the person will be seen.  Cross-dressing is forbidden all times.  2) Further, it is a sin of lewdness under the Natural Law to cross-dress even in private.  Perhaps this is easiest to see in the case of a man who, in private only, dresses in a pink calico dress (as in the example given above).  3) Wearing pants changes a woman’s outlook even if she were to wear them only in private, since she is still wearing the “feminist uniform” and still showing (though in private) that she “wears the pants in the family”.  We are creatures of habit and this practice would have a deleterious effect on the woman.  4) It is generally unwholesome for a person to walk around nude without a good reason to do so such as showering, even if no one sees him/her.  Likewise, (although to a lesser degree than nudity), it is unwholesome and sensual for a person to dress indecently even when alone if there is no good reason to do this.


    Three Additional Consequences of this Standard of Womanly Modesty

    Please note the following consequences that flow directly from the above Catholic requirement of Mary-like modesty that women should never wear pants:

    1.    Just as women and girls should not wear pants, this same standard also applies to photographs, paintings, and statues, whether the woman or girl who is depicted is known or unknown.  It would obviously be illogical for a woman to carefully dress modestly herself but also to promote or display scandalous art on her wall (or scandalous pictures of her relatives hung with magnets on her refrigerator, etc.).  For the very same reason that she is forbidden to dress this way, a Catholic is forbidden to promote or display such immodest images.

     

    2.    Parents, especially mothers, have a duty to guide their daughters not only to comply with the Catholic standard of modesty but also to love this beautiful virtue.

     

    3.    If we somehow come into possession of pants that are meant to be worn by women or girls, we should not give them away or donate them, because then we would become an accomplice or accessory to someone else’s sin of wearing these pants.


    Conclusion

    From the above considerations, it is clear that women should not wear pants because the virtue of womanly modesty forbids this and also because it is a revolt against God in three ways.

    We live in pagan times.  Just as a living organism only stays alive (i.e., remains a living plant or animal), if it resists the corrupting influences (e.g., of bacteria) which are all around it, likewise we must protect the life of our souls (which live the life of grace) by resisting the moral corruption of sin all around us.

    Let us beware of rationalizing immodesty by saying that the standard of Mary-like modesty is too old-fashioned and that we live in modern times where the requirements of modesty are weaker.

    It is Catholic Common Sense that we should not adopt the dress or other practices of the anti-Christ revolution (including women wearing pants) no matter how many other people do so in our corrupt times.  So, however much the cultural revolution has accepted “unisex” clothes and women dressing in men’s clothes such as pants, nonetheless, when women wear pants “they are abominable with the Lord”.  Deuteronomy, 22:5.

    Let us live our Catholic Faith!  We need to restore all things in Christ!  One important aspect of this is for women to dress like women and to not be an abomination to the Lord.

    Catholic feminine modesty is a beautiful ornament of a good woman or girl.  All of us – men and women – should love and appreciate this virtue!



    [1]           St. Thomas Aquinas, Lectures on St. John’s Gospel, ch.8, §1250.


    [2]           The Whole Truth About Fatima, Frere Michel de la Sante Trinite, Vol. II, Ch.4 appendix II.

    [3]           Read about societal acceptance of tattoos not occurring until society became sufficiently corrupt, roughly beginning in the 1960s: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/tattoos-are-a-sin-to-obtain-and-a-sin-to-display.html

    [4]           Read about societal acceptance of cremation not occurring until society became sufficiently corrupt, roughly beginning in the 1960s: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/cremation-is-barbaric

     

    [5]           Society began to view it as acceptable for wives and mothers to abandon their role in life at roughly the same time (the revolutionary 1960s) as society began considering women wearing pants as acceptable and not shocking.  Read this article here: The Role and Work that God Gave to Woman, https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/02/the-role-and-work-that-god-gave-to-woman/

     

    [6]           Pope Pius XII, Address to the Latin Union of High Fashion, November 8, 1957.


    [7]          
    Pope Pius XII, Address to the Latin Union of High Fashion, November 8, 1957.

  • Women should Wear Dresses and Skirts, Not Pants – Part 3

    Catholic Candle note: The article below is part 3 of an article the first part of which is found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/02/19/women-should-wear-dresses-and-skirts-not-pants/

    The second part of this article is found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/03/21/women-should-wear-dresses-and-skirts-not-pants-part-2/

    This article is a companion article to our article about Mary-like Neckline Modesty, which can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2023/05/21/marylike-neckline-modesty/

    Both of these articles apply to girls as well as women and assist them in fulfilling the role and great work for which God created women.  Read more about this role and great work here: https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/02/the-role-and-work-that-god-gave-to-woman/

    Part 3

    Recap of parts 1 & 2

    In part one of this article, we saw five reasons why men (as well as women) need to understand the Catholic standards of modesty for women (and men).

    The article then lists four reasons why women should not wear pants:

    1.    It is objectively a sin against the revealed Divine Law for a woman to wear pants;

    2.    It is objectively a sin of lewdness[1] under the Natural Law for a woman to wear pants, even apart from the issue of pants being more revealing of a woman’s body;

    3.    A woman who wears pants objectively commits a sin of feminist usurpation of man’s role and “nature” and denial of her own “nature” and role in God’s plan; and

    4.    A woman wearing pants objectively sins because pants are immodest for her due to their revealing too much of her figure.

    Then the article’s first two parts look at the first two of those reasons.  Below, is the third reason why women should wear dresses and skirts and not pants.

    3. It is a Sin for a Woman to Wear Pants  because it is a Feminist Usurpation of Man’s Role and “Nature” and is also a Denial of Her Own “Nature” and Her Own Role in God’s Plan.

    Above, we saw that women wearing pants is a sin against the revealed Divine Law and against the Natural Law.  But besides that, women wearing pants is a declaration promoting feminism.  This is because feminists wear men’s clothes to challenge the natural order that the man is the head of the family.

    It is evident to society at large that there is a clear connection between feminism and women wearing pants.  For example, the New York Times published a lengthy article concerning how it first became “normal” in the 1970s for women to wear pants and the Times called its article Feminism’s Effect on Fashion.[2]

    Along somewhat the same lines, here is how actress Elizabeth Taylor characterized her feminism:

    I’m loud and I’m vulgar, and I wear the pants in the house because somebody’s got to, but I am not a monster.  I’m not.[3]

    Look at her interesting word choice.  A monster is something strange, unnatural, and abnormal.  She is saying: “I am loud, unfeminine, and wear pants.  But I don’t want you to think that I am an abnormal woman.”  Elizabeth Taylor is trying to deny the obvious: viz., her being the way she is does make her an unwomanly woman – which is something strange, unnatural, and abnormal.

    Here is how a History of Women Wearing Pants connects pants to feminism:     

    Nothing says equality [viz., with men] more than a nice [sic] pair of pants.  In the language of clothes, pants equal power.  Pants on a woman disrupt the status quo.  They certainly aren’t “lady-like.”[4]

    These words recognize that wearing pants opposes the “nature” that God gave to woman.

    We commonly express authority in the home and family (and even in other situations) by saying that a person “wears the pants in the family”.  The expression “wearing the pants” refers to wearing men’s clothes and this is connected to and represents man’s role in the family.  So, for example, one dictionary defines “wear the pants” to mean “to be in charge in or control of a relationship”.[5]

    So, when a woman wears pants, it is a declaration by her actions that she claims to be in charge and is “wearing the pants” in the family.  But this is contrary to what God intended a woman to be, i.e.:

      Quiet and meek;[6] and

      Subject to her husband.[7]

    It is no wonder that wearing pants changes a woman’s outlook and her relationship with those around her!  She is “wearing the pants” indicating that she is “in charge or in control of a relationship”.  This not only indicates promotion of the evil of feminism, but this has real-life influence on her and those around her.  Here is how Cardinal Siri warned his flock about the evil effects caused by women wearing pants:

    Notification about Women Wearing Male Clothing

    The wearing of men’s dress by women affects firstly the woman herself, by changing the feminine psychology proper to women; secondly it affects the woman as wife of her husband, by tending to vitiate relationships between the sexes; thirdly it affects the woman as mother of her children by harming her dignity in her children’s eyes.  Each of these points is to be carefully considered in turn:

    A.   Male Dress Changes the Psychology of Women.

    In truth, the motive impelling women to wear men’s dress is always that of imitating, nay, of competing with, the man who is considered stronger, less tied down, more independent.  This motivation shows clearly that male dress is the visible aid to bringing about a mental attitude of being “like a man”.
    Secondly, ever since men have been men, the clothing a person wears demands, imposes, and modifies that person’s gestures, attitudes, and behavior, such that from merely being worn outside, clothing comes to impose a particular frame of mind inside.

    Then let us add that a woman wearing man’s clothes always more or less indicates her reacting to her femininity as though it is an issue of inferiority when in fact it is only diversity.  The perversion of her psychology is clear to be seen.

    These reasons, summing up many more, are enough to warn us how wrongly women are made to think by the wearing of men’s dress.

    B.   Male Dress Tends to Vitiate Relationships between Women and Men.

    In truth, when relationships between the two sexes unfold with the coming of age, an instinct of mutual attraction is predominant.  The essential basis of this attraction is a diversity between the two sexes which is made possible only by their complementing or completing one another.  If then this “diversity” becomes less obvious because one of its major external signs is eliminated and because the normal psychological structure is weakened, what results is the alteration of a fundamental factor in the relationship.

    The problem goes further still.  Mutual attraction between the sexes is preceded both naturally, and in order of time, by that sense of shame [shyness] which holds the rising instincts in check, imposes respect upon them, and tends to lift to a higher level of mutual esteem and healthy fear everything that those instincts would push onwards to uncontrolled acts.  To change that clothing which by its diversity reveals and upholds nature’s limits and defense-works, is to flatten out the distinctions and to help pull down the vital defense-works of the sense of shame.

    It is at least to hinder that sense.  And when the sense of shame [shyness] is hindered from putting on the brakes, then relationships between men and women sink degradingly down to pure sensuality, devoid of all mutual respect or esteem.

    Experience is there to tell us that when woman is de-feminized, then defenses are undermined and weakness increases.


    C.   Male Dress Harms the Dignity of the Mother in Her Children’s Eyes.

    All children have an instinct for the sense of dignity and decorum of their mother.  Analysis of the first inner crisis of children when they awaken to life around them even before they enter upon adolescence, shows how much the sense of their mother counts.  Children are as sensitive as can be on this point.  Adults have usually left all that behind them and think no more on it.  But we would do well to recall to mind the severe demands that children instinctively make of their own mother, and the deep and even terrible reactions roused in them by observation of their mother’s misbehavior.  Many lines of later life are here traced out – and not for good – in these early inner dramas of infancy and childhood.

    The child may not know the definition of exposure, frivolity or infidelity, but he possesses an instinctive sixth sense to recognize them when they occur, to suffer from them, and be bitterly wounded by them in his soul.[8]

    This is the third reason it is a sin for women to wear pants.

    (To be continued)

     



    [1]           Lewdness (noun): indecency or obscenity; vulgar sexual character or behavior.  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lewdness

    [4]           https://the-toast.net/2014/08/07/wearing-pants-brief-history/  Bracketed words added for clarity.

    [6]           “Let wives be subject to their husbands:  that if any believe not the word, they

    may be won without the word, by the conversation of the wives.  Considering your chaste conversation with fear.    Whose adorning let it not be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel.  But the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and a meek spirit….”  1 Peter, 3:1-4.

    [7]           St. Paul teaches: “Therefore, as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.”  Ephesians, 5:24. 

    [8]           Quoted from Notification by Cardinal Siri published on June 12, 1960 (bracketed words added for clarity).

    Women should Wear Dresses and Skirts, Not Pants – Complete

    Catholic Candle note: The article below is a companion article to our article about Mary-like Neckline Modesty, which can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2023/05/21/marylike-neckline-modesty/

    Both of these articles apply to girls as well as women and assist them in fulfilling the role and great work for which God created women.  Read more about this role and great work here: https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/02/the-role-and-work-that-god-gave-to-woman/

     

    Women should Wear Dresses and Skirts,
    Not Pants

    We live in a pagan world (as we see all around us).  Even many Catholic women adopt the evil fashions they see all around them.  Let us inquire whether women should ever wear pants.

    But first, let us inquire whether this issue is one that only women need to know about.


    Is it Important for Men (as well as Women) to Know the Catholic Standard of Modesty for Women?

    Men and women should all care about feminine modesty and know the standards of Catholic modesty.  It is obvious that a woman should understand and live the Catholic standard of modesty so that she can please God, edify her neighbor, be a good example, teach her daughters, and avoid sin.

    But there are five reasons why men should know these standards too:

    1.    It is important for men and boys to know the standards of female modesty because they have a duty to avert their eyes from women’s and girl’s attire which does not comply with such modesty standards.

     

    This is obvious.  The main reason why women and girls have standards of modesty (and must not “wear whatever they want to”) is because there are men and boys who will look at them. 

    Women must cover up for the sake of the men.  This is common decency and is a minimum charity that they owe to their (male) neighbors.  Women would be callously disregarding the salvation of men (and themselves) if women dressed without concern for the temptations their attire would cause in men.

    This is like the fact that a person must not wildly swing a butcher knife “whenever he wants to” without regard for the risk of injuring those around him.  In fact, immodesty is more dangerous than the butcher knife because immodesty can kill the soul whereas a butcher knife can only kill the body. 

    Of course, it is also true that men must dress modestly for the sake of the women too.  This is men’s minimum charity toward their (female) neighbors.  However, there are three reasons that female immodesty is a greater problem:

      Women are the more beautiful sex and so are more attractive;

      Men are more prone than women are to sins of impurity by looking impurely at the opposite sex, as is evident by the fact that the filthy practice of viewing pornography is a sin which is far more frequently committed by men rather than by women; and

      Men and women both are more inclined to weaken on women’s standards of modesty than on men’s modesty.  This is because women have a stronger focus on pleasing men by their (i.e., women’s) appearance, and men have less of a focus on pleasing women by their own (i.e., the men’s) appearance but have a greater tendency to be pleased by women’s appearance (than are women focused on and pleased by men’s appearance).  Here are three signs that this is true:

    first, women desire and usually have a far larger wardrobe and wear far more jewelry than men do;


    second,
    women take many other pains to look attractive for men, such as wearing makeup, getting their hair curled or permed, etc., and

    third, men’s clothes and shoes are more practical and serviceable.  By contrast, women’s clothes and shoes are much more likely to be less comfortable because they are more designed to please men rather than for comfort.  (For example, women’s shoes are designed to make a woman’s foot look smaller.) 
     

    2.    It is important for an unmarried man who is called to the married vocation (and not to the life of consecrated virginity) to have prominently featured in his “blue print” of the future spouse he seeks, that she possess and love this great treasure of the Catholic standard of holy modesty; 

    3.    It is important for a man to know the Catholic standard of feminine modesty so that he can give moral support and defend the modesty of good women against scoffers, mockers, and other enemies of Our Lord.  (For example, it is all too often that women who take modesty seriously are made to feel prudish and isolated, especially by other women who have a more liberal dress code.)  Men should be gallant and gentlemanly.  They should defend women, especially good women who are living the standards of modesty and other virtues;

     

    4.    It is important for a man to know the Catholic standard of feminine modesty because he will be responsible for guiding his wife and daughters (when God sends him his own family) and will be ultimately responsible for this standard being implemented in his own home and family; and

     

    5.    It is important for a man to know the Catholic standard of feminine modesty so he can love this beautiful virtue and admire and appreciate the Mary-like women and girls who practice it.

     

    Four Reasons Women Should Not Wear Pants

    There are four reasons why it is a sin for women to wear pants:

    1.    It is objectively a sin against the revealed Divine Law for a woman to wear pants;

    2.    It is objectively a sin of lewdness[1] under the Natural Law for a woman to wear pants, even apart from the issue of pants being more revealing of a woman’s body;

    3.    A woman who wears pants objectively commits a sin of feminist usurpation of man’s role and “nature” and denial of her own “nature” and role in God’s plan; and

    4.    A woman wearing pants objectively sins because pants are immodest for her due to their revealing too much of her figure.

    Below, we consider each of these reasons.


    1.     It is Objectively a Sin against the
    Revealed Divine Law for Women to Wear Pants.

    God has revealed His law that it is evil for a woman to wear a man’s clothes (and also for men to wear women’s clothes).  Here are the words of God’s law:

    Let not a woman wear men’s clothes nor a man use women’s clothes.  For they are abominable with the Lord who do such things.

     

    Deuteronomy, 22:5.

    One article of man’s clothing is pants.  Although at any time in history, one can find deviant persons wearing clothes which are taboo in order to get attention or to shock those around them, nonetheless, it only relatively-recently that the enemies of Christ succeeded to such an extent in their cultural revolution that society more generally was desensitized to women wearing pants so that it became no longer shocking to most people.  This occurred roughly in the revolutionary 1960s, when society also became desensitized to other evils such as to tattoos[2], to cremation[3], to rock and roll “music”, and to wives and mothers being career women[4].  These things are still sins despite most people accepting them.

    One history of women wearing pants (published by Time Magazine), noted that the popular fashion magazine, Vogue, did not print a picture of a woman wearing pants until 1939 and that people were shocked by that picture.  Here is that entry in that history:

    It wasn’t until 1939 that Vogue pictured its first woman wearing slacks in a spread, at a time when those garments still weren’t widely worn by women and had the power to shock.[5]

    Citing a book on women’s clothes and their style during the 1900s, another history called it “radical” that society began to accept women wearing pants.  Here are the words of this history:

    “One of the most radical developments for women was the gradual acceptance of trousers, which were no longer considered either eccentric or strictly utilitarian,” write historians Valerie Mendes and Amy de la Haye in their book, 20th Century Fashion.[6]

    This history correctly calls this change “radical” because, as a third history remarks, “wearing trousers was considered shocking by many women at the beginning of the 20th century”.[7]

    Lastly, a fourth history (of women wearing pants) points specifically to the cultural revolution of the 1960s as the turning point in which women in pants had become common enough that there was no longer much outrage at the practice.  Here is how that history phrases it:

    By the time the counter-culture movement of the 1960s had reached its height, a woman in pants wasn’t much to be outraged by, even if in workplaces pants remained the preserve of men for a while longer.[8]

    In a 1977 New York Times retrospective on feminism’s effect on women’s “fashion”, the newspaper explains that:

    The early 1970s was the period [in which] … women seeking to express their individuality wore pants.[9]

    This, of course, is because such women thought themselves to be showing “individuality” because women wearing this men’s garment was still uncommon then.

    This 1977 New York Times article continued, pointing particularly to the influence of a fashion corrupter named Calvin Klein, who led this revolution in women’s “fashion”:

    Calvin Klein was instantly successful with clothes that were influenced by menswear — pants, tailored coats and jackets. “Ten years ago [i.e., 1967] a woman wore pants as a way of showing daring and security in herself,” he says ….[10]

    The reason why it was considered “daring” for a woman to wear pants in the 1960s and early 1970s, is because society considered her to be provocative by wearing men’s clothes.

    So, we see that our culture was not degraded enough until roughly the 1960s or 1970s, and only then was society callous enough to no longer be shocked by women wearing these men’s garments.

    It is true that a person could wonder whether women wearing pants was accepted in other parts of the world earlier.  It seems that in some places in the world, where a false and corrupt “religion” formed a different and corrupt “culture”, women wearing pants was accepted earlier because the “culture” was worse. 

    However, in former Christendom (the Western World), which had been formed by the Catholic Faith, and by true Catholic culture, women wearing pants was not generally accepted earlier.  It was only when (former) Christendom had slid far enough into degradation that people were no longer shocked by women wearing pants.  Again, this was roughly in the 1960s – 1970s.  Only then had Our Lord’s enemies sufficiently prevailed in their cultural revolution.

    2.     It is a Sin against the Natural Law for
    Women to Wear Pants.

    A person could suppose that it might have been permissible for women to wear pants and other men’s clothes (or for men to wear women’s clothes) if God had not forbidden this in the revealed Law in Sacred Scripture.  But that supposition is false because such cross-dressing is forbidden by the Natural Law, too.[11]

    This prohibition under the Natural Law is especially because wearing the clothes of the other sex causes lewdness.  Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church, teaches this truth:

    It is in itself sinful for a woman to wear man’s clothes, or vice versa, especially since this can cause lewdness.[12]

    Pants are men’s clothes and it is a sin for women to wear pants just as it is a sin for a man to wear a dress because dresses are a woman’s clothes.  This particular reason why it is sinful for women to wear the clothes of the opposite sex does not depend on how much such clothes reveal a woman’s body.  For example, even if she should wear a complete men’s suit with a dress shirt buttoned up to her neck,  nevertheless, it is inherently sinful to do so.

    It would also be a sin of cross-dressing for a man to wear a dress even if it were a “very modest” dress, precisely because it is woman’s attire.  The same example (a man wearing a dress) is all-the-more cringe-worthy if the dress is pink calico with lots of lace and frills as well as accompanied by broaches, pearl necklaces, and 4-inch-high spike heels.  But those conditions and accessories are not necessary circumstances for the man to have committed the sin of cross-dressing (although such feminine accessories might increase the sin).

    This is because, as St. Thomas explains, such cross-dressing is a cause of lewdness and sensuality.  This lewdness arises because it is lewd for a man to insert his body into women’s clothes (i.e., for him to commingle his body with women’s clothes).  Similarly, it is lewd for a woman to insert her body into a man’s clothes or commingle her body with man’s clothes.

    Again, this reason we are discussing now (why it is a sin for men and women to cross-dress) does not pertain to whether a woman’s figure is more revealed in pants (which it is) but pertains to the fact that pants are men’s clothes.  In other words, it is a sin for a woman to wear men’s clothes regardless of whether such clothes would immodestly reveal her body.

    This is the second reason it is a sin for women to wear pants.


    3. It is a Sin for a Woman to Wear Pants  because it is a Feminist Usurpation of Man’s Role and “Nature” and is also a Denial of Her Own “Nature” and Her Own Role in God’s Plan.

    Above, we saw that women wearing pants is a sin against the revealed Divine Law and against the Natural Law.  But besides that, women wearing pants is a declaration promoting feminism.  This is because feminists wear men’s clothes to challenge the natural order that the man is the head of the family.

    It is evident to society at large that there is a clear connection between feminism and women wearing pants.  For example, the New York Times published a lengthy article concerning how it first became “normal” in the 1970s for women to wear pants and the Times called its article Feminism’s Effect on Fashion.[13]

    Along somewhat the same lines, here is how actress Elizabeth Taylor characterized her feminism:

    I’m loud and I’m vulgar, and I wear the pants in the house because somebody’s got to, but I am not a monster.  I’m not.[14]

    Look at her interesting word choice.  A monster is something strange, unnatural, and abnormal.  She is saying: “I am loud, unfeminine, and wear pants.  But I don’t want you to think that I am an abnormal woman.”  Elizabeth Taylor is trying to deny the obvious: viz., her being the way she is does make her an unwomanly woman – which is something strange, unnatural, and abnormal.

    Here is how a History of Women Wearing Pants connects pants to feminism:    

    Nothing says equality [viz., with men] more than a nice [sic] pair of pants.  In the language of clothes, pants equal power.  Pants on a woman disrupt the status quo.  They certainly aren’t “lady-like.”[15]

    These words recognize that wearing pants opposes the “nature” that God gave to woman.

    We commonly express authority in the home and family (and even in other situations) by saying that a person “wears the pants in the family”.  The expression “wearing the pants” refers to wearing men’s clothes and this is connected to and represents man’s role in the family.  So, for example, one dictionary defines “wear the pants” to mean “to be in charge in or control of a relationship”.[16]

    So, when a woman wears pants, it is a declaration by her actions that she claims to be in charge and is “wearing the pants” in the family.  But this is contrary to what God intended a woman to be, i.e.:

    Ø  Quiet and meek;[17] and

    Ø  Subject to her husband.[18]

    It is no wonder that wearing pants changes a woman’s outlook and her relationship with those around her!  She is “wearing the pants” indicating that she is “in charge or in control of a relationship”.  This not only indicates promotion of the evil of feminism, but this has real-life influence on her and those around her.  Here is how Cardinal Siri warned his flock about the evil effects caused by women wearing pants:

    Notification about Women Wearing Male Clothing

    The wearing of men’s dress by women affects firstly the woman herself, by changing the feminine psychology proper to women; secondly it affects the woman as wife of her husband, by tending to vitiate relationships between the sexes; thirdly it affects the woman as mother of her children by harming her dignity in her children’s eyes.  Each of these points is to be carefully considered in turn:

    A.   Male Dress Changes the Psychology of Women.

    In truth, the motive impelling women to wear men’s dress is always that of imitating, nay, of competing with, the man who is considered stronger, less tied down, more independent.  This motivation shows clearly that male dress is the visible aid to bringing about a mental attitude of being “like a man”. 

    Secondly, ever since men have been men, the clothing a person wears demands, imposes, and modifies that person’s gestures, attitudes, and behavior, such that from merely being worn outside, clothing comes to impose a particular frame of mind inside.

    Then let us add that a woman wearing man’s clothes always more or less indicates her reacting to her femininity as though it is an issue of inferiority when in fact it is only diversity.  The perversion of her psychology is clear to be seen.

    These reasons, summing up many more, are enough to warn us how wrongly women are made to think by the wearing of men’s dress.

    B.   Male Dress Tends to Vitiate Relationships between Women and Men.

    In truth, when relationships between the two sexes unfold with the coming of age, an instinct of mutual attraction is predominant.  The essential basis of this attraction is a diversity between the two sexes which is made possible only by their complementing or completing one another.  If then this “diversity” becomes less obvious because one of its major external signs is eliminated and because the normal psychological structure is weakened, what results is the alteration of a fundamental factor in the relationship.

    The problem goes further still.  Mutual attraction between the sexes is preceded both naturally, and in order of time, by that sense of shame [shyness] which holds the rising instincts in check, imposes respect upon them, and tends to lift to a higher level of mutual esteem and healthy fear everything that those instincts would push onwards to uncontrolled acts.  To change that clothing which by its diversity reveals and upholds nature’s limits and defense-works, is to flatten out the distinctions and to help pull down the vital defense-works of the sense of shame.

    It is at least to hinder that sense.  And when the sense of shame [shyness] is hindered from putting on the brakes, then relationships between men and women sink degradingly down to pure sensuality, devoid of all mutual respect or esteem.

    Experience is there to tell us that when woman is de-feminized, then defenses are undermined and weakness increases.


    C.   Male Dress Harms the Dignity of the Mother in Her Children’s Eyes.

    All children have an instinct for the sense of dignity and decorum of their mother.  Analysis of the first inner crisis of children when they awaken to life around them even before they enter upon adolescence, shows how much the sense of their mother counts.  Children are as sensitive as can be on this point.  Adults have usually left all that behind them and think no more on it.  But we would do well to recall to mind the severe demands that children instinctively make of their own mother, and the deep and even terrible reactions roused in them by observation of their mother’s misbehavior.  Many lines of later life are here traced out – and not for good – in these early inner dramas of infancy and childhood.

    The child may not know the definition of exposure, frivolity or infidelity, but he possesses an instinctive sixth sense to recognize them when they occur, to suffer from them, and be bitterly wounded by them in his soul.[19]


    4.     A woman wearing pants also sins because pants are immodest for her due to their revealing too much of her figure.

    Let’s start this section with a recap to see the connection between rebellion and immodesty:

    Recap of the Three Types of Rebellion Present When Women Wear Pants

    The devil is the inventor of sin, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches.[20]  The devil is the first revolutionary and his battle cry is “non serviam!”  We see Satan’s rebellious spirit in his inducing women to wear pants:

      He leads their rebellion against God, getting them to wear men’s clothes against the revealed Divine Law.  Deuteronomy, 22:5.

      He leads their rebellion against Nature (getting them to wear men’s clothes) against the Natural Law.  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.169, a.2, ad 3.

      He leads their rebellion against men’s authority (getting women to wear men’s clothes) as a feminist rebellion against living the role in life that God intends for women.

    But rebellion is only one of Satan’s favorite weapons.  Immodesty is the other.


    Satan Promotes Immodesty at the Same Time, Using These Rebellions

    Considering that Satan chooses women wearing pants as a tool of rebellion, we would expect (even before looking into the issue) that Satan’s tactics would not only foment rebellion but would also promote impurity, since impurity, like disobedience, is one of the most common sins that Satan promotes. 

    Satan knows what Our Lady warned at Fatima that “more people go to hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason.”[21]  Thus, Satan promotes impurity because he knows impurity is such an effective tool for damning souls.

    Upon reflection, we see that our preliminary expectation is correct that Satan’s tool of women wearing pants combines the sin of rebellion with the sin of immodesty because pants are too revealing of a woman’s body.   

    Let us now look at this issue of pants being immodest on a woman.


    Different Dangers for Men and Women Regarding Impurity

    Men and women are different and possess different tendencies towards impurity.  Men are more easily led into sins against purity through their sense of sight.  For this reason, modesty for men chiefly requires custody of their eyes as the guard of purity. 

    By contrast, women are more tempted in matters of impurity through vanity by seeking to attract the eyes of men by excessive exposure of their (viz., the women’s) bodies.  Thus, it is in the “nature” of women that they are more interested in being admired by men for their appearance rather than admiring men’s appearance.  That is why also, that men are more interested in the appearance of women than they are interested in women admiring their appearance.

    Of course, this does not mean that men should be unconcerned with the modesty of their own dress or that women should be unconcerned with custody of their eyes.  But the stronger, typical tendencies are for men to encounter dangers against purity because of looking at women, and women to encounter dangers against purity by the way they seek to attract men’s eyes by their appearance.  These different tendencies of the two sexes are why men are the usual consumers of pornography and women are the usual subjects of pornography.

    Further, God made woman the more beautiful and attractive sex, and He made women’s bodies more sensual.  Thus, the virtue of modesty requires that this greater attractiveness be concealed with womanly attire, which takes Nature into account.  So, women must wear clothes which cover up more.  They must wear loose-fitting dresses and skirts. 


    Three Ways Pants are Immodest for Women

    Pants reveal too much of a woman’s figure because:

      Pants make a woman’s legs more visibly defined.  A dress, compared to pants, fits the lower body in a way similar to how a mitten fits a hand, compared to a glove.  Plainly, a glove reveals more of the hand’s shape. (This importance of a woman concealing her feminine silhouette is also the chief reason why modesty requires her to wear a slip under her dress, viz., to avoid the outline of her legs being visible.)

      Pants “allow daylight” (to show between her legs) all of the way up to her private parts.
     

      Pants also reveal more of the contours of a woman’s backside than does a dress or skirt.

    So, because women are obliged to dress in a manner that conceals the contours of their bodies, rather than reveals them, this is why they must wear dresses and skirts, not pants. 


    Answers to Six Objections

    There now remains only for us to answer six objections to this key moral principle (viz., that women should wear dresses or skirts, and not pants):

    1.    Objection:  A person could object that some (so-called) “modest” pants can be permissible because they conceal more of a woman’s figure than do “some skirts”. 

    Response:  This “justification” only shows that there are some skirts which are immodest also and should never be worn.  Further, although a woman should never wear an immodest skirt, nonetheless, such a skirt does not involve her committing the sins of rebellion which occur in wearing men’s clothes.


    2.    Objection:  Couldn’t we say that our modern society has now accepted women wearing pants so that pants have become women’s clothes (as well as men’s clothes)? 

    Response:  No.  As we already saw above, pants were not generally accepted by society as “women’s clothes” until relatively recently, when society got sufficiently corrupt so as to accept women wearing pants.  This was in the same period in which society began to accept various other evils (e.g., tattoos[22], cremation[23], rock and roll “music”, and wives and mothers being career women[24]), all of which showed and promoted the degenerateness of society. 

    But what is accepted by a corrupt society is not the proper measure by which we should make the determination what is acceptable.  Here is one way that Pope Pius XII teaches this truth:

    [A] garment must not be evaluated according to the estimation of a decadent or already-corrupt society, but according to the aspirations of a society which prizes the dignity and seriousness of its public attire.[25]

    3.    Objection:  A person could say that women wearing pants is “no big deal” and that “I’m used to it”. 

    Response:  Such excuse merely shows that the person has become used to sin and has suffered some moral taint.  Here is one way that Pope Pius XII warned against this attitude:

    The most insidious of sophisms, which are usually repeated to justify immodesty, seems to be the same everywhere.  One of these resurrects the ancient saying “let there be no argument about things we are accustomed to”, in order to brand as old fashioned the rebellion of honest people against fashions which are too bold ….[26]

    4.    Objection:  Suppose a woman has duties which “require” her to perform activities for which a dress is immodest because the wind blows her dress upwards, or she is on a ladder cleaning, or because of the way she “must” move her limbs during such activity.

    Response:  It might be that some activities would require a dress that is longer or of heavier fabric than modesty requires for other activities.  But there are no activities which a woman should perform which cannot be done under appropriate conditions and wearing modest and womanly clothes.  Furthermore, all activities suited for women have been performed in earlier generations, by good women in dresses or skirts.

    5.    Objection:  “But where I live it gets so cold in the winter!  So. I ‘need’ to wear pants to stay warm.”

    Response:  Cold weather is not a new phenomenon and winter is not a new invention.  Throughout the history of mankind, women have dressed modestly, in womanly clothes, and stayed warm.  But, of course, warm, womanly undergarments will help accomplish this, as well as long winter coats and dresses made of thick fabrics suitable for the season.

    6.   Objection: There can’t be anything wrong with a woman wearing pants when she is alone, when no one will see her.

     

    Response: 1) Notice that God’s Commandment in Deuteronomy does not forbid cross-dressing only when the person will be seen.  Cross-dressing is forbidden all times.  2) Further, it is a sin of lewdness under the Natural Law to cross-dress even in private.  Perhaps this is easiest to see in the case of a man who, in private only, dresses in a pink calico dress (as in the example given above).  3) Wearing pants changes a woman’s outlook even if she were to wear them only in private, since she is still wearing the “feminist uniform” and still showing (though in private) that she “wears the pants in the family”.  We are creatures of habit and this practice would have a deleterious effect on the woman.  4) It is generally unwholesome for a person to walk around nude without a good reason to do so such as showering, even if no one sees him/her.  Likewise, (although to a lesser degree than nudity), it is unwholesome and sensual for a person to dress indecently even when alone if there is no good reason to do this.


    Three Additional Consequences of this Standard of Womanly Modesty

    Please note the following consequences that flow directly from the above Catholic requirement of Mary-like modesty that women should never wear pants:

    1.    Just as women and girls should not wear pants, this same standard also applies to photographs, paintings, and statues, whether the woman or girl who is depicted is known or unknown.  It would obviously be illogical for a woman to carefully dress modestly herself but also to promote or display scandalous art on her wall (or scandalous pictures of her relatives hung with magnets on her refrigerator, etc.).  For the very same reason that she is forbidden to dress this way, a Catholic is forbidden to promote or display such immodest images.

     

    2.    Parents, especially mothers, have a duty to guide their daughters not only to comply with the Catholic standard of modesty but also to love this beautiful virtue.

     

    3.    If we somehow come into possession of pants that are meant to be worn by women or girls, we should not give them away or donate them, because then we would become an accomplice or accessory to someone else’s sin of wearing these pants.


    Conclusion

    From the above considerations, it is clear that women should not wear pants because the virtue of womanly modesty forbids this and also because it is a revolt against God in three ways.

    We live in pagan times.  Just as a living organism only stays alive (i.e., remains a living plant or animal), if it resists the corrupting influences (e.g., of bacteria) which are all around it, likewise we must protect the life of our souls (which live the life of grace) by resisting the moral corruption of sin all around us.

    Let us beware of rationalizing immodesty by saying that the standard of Mary-like modesty is too old-fashioned and that we live in modern times where the requirements of modesty are weaker.

    It is Catholic Common Sense that we should not adopt the dress or other practices of the anti-Christ revolution (including women wearing pants) no matter how many other people do so in our corrupt times.  So, however much the cultural revolution has accepted “unisex” clothes and women dressing in men’s clothes such as pants, nonetheless, when women wear pants “they are abominable with the Lord”.  Deuteronomy, 22:5.

    Let us live our Catholic Faith!  We need to restore all things in Christ!  One important aspect of this is for women to dress like women and to not be an abomination to the Lord.

    Catholic feminine modesty is a beautiful ornament of a good woman or girl.  All of us – men and women – should love and appreciate this virtue!

     



    [1]           Lewdness (noun): indecency or obscenity; vulgar sexual character or behavior.  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lewdness

    [2]           Society began to view tattoos as neither shocking nor deviant at roughly the same time (the revolutionary 1960s) as society began considering women wearing pants as acceptable and not shocking.  Read this article here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/tattoos-are-a-sin-to-obtain-and-a-sin-to-display

    [3]           Society began to view cremation as neither pagan nor barbaric at roughly the same time (the revolutionary 1960s) as society began considering women wearing pants as acceptable and not shocking.  Read this article here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/cremation-is-barbaric

    [4]           Society began to view it as acceptable for wives and mothers to abandon their role in life at roughly the same time (the revolutionary 1960s) as society began considering women wearing pants as acceptable and not shocking.  Read this article here: The Role and Work that God Gave to Woman, https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/02/the-role-and-work-that-god-gave-to-woman/

     

    [6]           History of Women Wearing Pants, found here: https://qz.com/quartzy/1597688/a-brief-history-of-women-in-pants

    [8]           History of Women Wearing Pants: https://qz.com/quartzy/1597688/a-brief-history-of-women-in-pants

    [11]         The Natural Law is what we know is right (or wrong) by the light of the natural reason God gave us.  One example of the Natural Law is that we must never tell a lie.  We naturally know this because we know that the purpose of speech is to convey the truth and so we naturally know that telling a lie is abusing the purpose of speech. 

    Here is how St. Thomas explains what the Natural Law is:

    [L]aw, being a rule and measure, can be in a person in two ways: in one way, as in him that rules and measures; in another way, as in that which is ruled and measured, since a thing is ruled and measured, in so far as it partakes of the rule or measure.  Wherefore, since all things subject to Divine providence are ruled and measured by the eternal law, as was stated above [in Summa, Ia IIae, Q.91, a.1]; it is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends.  Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident both for itself and for others.  Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law.  Hence the Psalmist after saying (Psalm 4:6): "Offer up the sacrifice of justice," as though someone asked what the works of justice are, adds: "Many say, Who showeth us good things?" in answer to which question he says: "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us": thus implying that the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature’s participation of the eternal law.

    Summa, Ia IIae, Q.91, a.2, respondeo.

    [12]         Summa, IIa IIae, Q.169, a.2, ad 3.

     

    [15]         https://the-toast.net/2014/08/07/wearing-pants-brief-history/  Bracketed words added for clarity.

    [17]         “Let wives be subject to their husbands:  that if any believe not the word, they

    may be won without the word, by the conversation of the wives.  Considering your chaste conversation with fear.    Whose adorning let it not be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel.  But the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and a meek spirit….”  1 Peter, 3:1-4.

    [18]         St. Paul teaches: “Therefore, as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.”  Ephesians, 5:24. 

    [19]         Quoted from Notification by Cardinal Siri published on June 12, 1960 (bracketed words added for clarity).

    [20]         St. Thomas Aquinas, Lectures on St. John’s Gospel, ch.8, §1250.


    [21]          The Whole Truth About Fatima, Frere Michel de la Sante Trinite, Vol. II, Ch.4 appendix II.

    [22]         Read about societal acceptance of tattoos not occurring until society became sufficiently corrupt, roughly beginning in the 1960s: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/tattoos-are-a-sin-to-obtain-and-a-sin-to-display.html

    [23]         Read about societal acceptance of cremation not occurring until society became sufficiently corrupt, roughly beginning in the 1960s: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/cremation-is-barbaric

     

    [24]         Society began to view it as acceptable for wives and mothers to abandon their role in life at roughly the same time (the revolutionary 1960s) as society began considering women wearing pants as acceptable and not shocking.  Read this article here: The Role and Work that God Gave to Woman, https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/02/the-role-and-work-that-god-gave-to-woman/

     

    [25]         Pope Pius XII, Address to the Latin Union of High Fashion, November 8, 1957.


    [26]        
    Pope Pius XII, Address to the Latin Union of High Fashion, November 8, 1957.

    Women should Wear Dresses and Skirts, Not Pants – Part 2

    Catholic Candle note: The article below is part 2 of an article the first part of which is found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/02/19/women-should-wear-dresses-and-skirts-not-pants/


    This article is a companion article to our article about Mary-like Neckline Modesty, which can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2023/05/21/marylike-neckline-modesty/

    Both of these articles apply to girls as well as women and assist them in fulfilling the role and great work for which God created women.  Read more about this role and great work here: https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/02/the-role-and-work-that-god-gave-to-woman/

    Part 2

    Recap of part 1

    In part one of this article, we saw five reasons why men (as well as women) need to understand the Catholic standards of modesty for women (and men).

    The article then lists four reasons why women should not wear pants:

    1.    It is objectively a sin against the revealed Divine Law for a woman to wear pants;

    2.    It is objectively a sin of lewdness[1] under the Natural Law for a woman to wear pants, even apart from the issue of pants being more revealing of a woman’s body;

    3.    A woman who wears pants objectively commits a sin of feminist usurpation of man’s role and “nature” and denial of her own “nature” and role in God’s plan; and

    4.    A woman wearing pants objectively sins because pants are immodest for her due to their revealing too much of her figure.

    Then the article looks at the first of those reasons.  Below, is the remaining three reasons why women should wear dresses and skirts and not pants.


    2.     It is a Sin against the Natural Law for
    Women to Wear Pants.

    A person could suppose that it might have been permissible for women to wear pants and other men’s clothes (or for men to wear women’s clothes) if God had not forbidden this in the revealed Law in Sacred Scripture.  But that supposition is false because such cross-dressing is forbidden by the Natural Law, too.[2]

    This prohibition under the Natural Law is especially because wearing the clothes of the other sex causes lewdness.  Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church, teaches this truth:

    It is in itself sinful for a woman to wear man’s clothes, or vice versa, especially since this can cause lewdness.[3]

    Pants are men’s clothes and it is a sin for women to wear pants just as it is a sin for a man to wear a dress because dresses are a woman’s clothes.  This particular reason why it is sinful for women to wear the clothes of the opposite sex does not depend on how much such clothes reveal a woman’s body.  For example, even if she should wear a complete men’s suit with a dress shirt buttoned up to her neck,  nevertheless, it is inherently sinful to do so.

    It would also be a sin of cross-dressing for a man to wear a dress even if it were a “very modest” dress, precisely because it is woman’s attire.  The same example (a man wearing a dress) is all-the-more cringe-worthy if the dress is pink calico with lots of lace and frills as well as accompanied by broaches, pearl necklaces, and 4-inch-high spike heels.  But those conditions and accessories are not necessary circumstances for the man to have committed the sin of cross-dressing (although such feminine accessories might increase the sin).

    This is because, as St. Thomas explains, such cross-dressing is a cause of lewdness and sensuality.  This lewdness arises because it is lewd for a man to insert his body into women’s clothes (i.e., for him to commingle his body with women’s clothes).  Similarly, it is lewd for a woman to insert her body into a man’s clothes or commingle her body with man’s clothes.

    Again, this reason we are discussing now (why it is a sin for men and women to cross-dress) does not pertain to whether a woman’s figure is more revealed in pants (which it is) but pertains to the fact that pants are men’s clothes.  In other words, it is a sin for a woman to wear men’s clothes regardless of whether such clothes would immodestly reveal her body.

    This is the second reason it is a sin for women to wear pants.

     



    [1]           Lewdness (noun): indecency or obscenity; vulgar sexual character or behavior.  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lewdness

    [2]           The Natural Law is what we know is right (or wrong) by the light of the natural reason God gave us.  One example of the Natural Law is that we must never tell a lie.  We naturally know this because we know that the purpose of speech is to convey the truth and so we naturally know that telling a lie is abusing the purpose of speech. 

    Here is how St. Thomas explains what the Natural Law is:

    [L]aw, being a rule and measure, can be in a person in two ways: in one way, as in him that rules and measures; in another way, as in that which is ruled and measured, since a thing is ruled and measured, in so far as it partakes of the rule or measure.  Wherefore, since all things subject to Divine providence are ruled and measured by the eternal law, as was stated above [in Summa, Ia IIae, Q.91, a.1]; it is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends.  Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident both for itself and for others.  Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law.  Hence the Psalmist after saying (Psalm 4:6): "Offer up the sacrifice of justice," as though someone asked what the works of justice are, adds: "Many say, Who showeth us good things?" in answer to which question he says: "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us": thus implying that the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature’s participation of the eternal law.

    Summa, Ia IIae, Q.91, a.2, respondeo.

    [3]           Summa, IIa IIae, Q.169, a.2, ad 3.

     

    Women should Wear Dresses and Skirts, Not Pants

    Catholic Candle note: The article below is a companion article to our article about Mary-like Neckline Modesty, which can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2023/05/21/marylike-neckline-modesty/

    Both of these articles apply to girls as well as women and assist them in fulfilling the role and great work for which God created women.  Read more about this role and great work here: https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/02/the-role-and-work-that-god-gave-to-woman/

     

    We live in a pagan world (as we see all around us).  Even many Catholic women adopt the evil fashions they see all around them.  Let us inquire whether women should ever wear pants.

    But first, let us inquire whether this issue is one that only women need to know about.


    Is it Important for Men (as well as Women) to Know the Catholic Standard of Modesty for Women?

    Men and women should all care about feminine modesty and know the standards of Catholic modesty.  It is obvious that a woman should understand and live the Catholic standard of modesty so that she can please God, edify her neighbor, be a good example, teach her daughters, and avoid sin.

    But there are five reasons why men should know these standards too:

    1.    It is important for men and boys to know the standards of female modesty because they have a duty to avert their eyes from women’s and girl’s attire which does not comply with such modesty standards.
    This is obvious.  The main reason why women and girls have standards of modesty (and must not “wear whatever they want to”) is because there are men and boys who will look at them. 
    Women must cover up for the sake of the men.  This is common decency and is a minimum charity that they owe to their (male) neighbors.  Women would be callously disregarding the salvation of men (and themselves) if women dressed without concern for the temptations their attire would cause in men.
    This is like the fact that a person must not wildly swing a butcher knife “whenever he wants to” without regard for the risk of injuring those around him.  In fact, immodesty is more dangerous than the butcher knife because immodesty can kill the soul whereas a butcher knife can only kill the body. 
    Of course, it is also true that men must dress modestly for the sake of the women too.  This is men’s minimum charity toward their (female) neighbors.  However, there are three reasons that female immodesty is a greater problem:

      Women are the more beautiful sex and so are more attractive;

      Men are more prone than women are to sins of impurity by looking impurely at the opposite sex, as is evident by the fact that the filthy practice of viewing pornography is a sin which is far more frequently committed by men rather than by women; and

      Men and women both are more inclined to weaken on women’s standards of modesty than on men’s modesty.  This is because women have a stronger focus on pleasing men by their (i.e., women’s) appearance, and men have less of a focus on pleasing women by their own (i.e., the men’s) appearance but have a greater tendency to be pleased by women’s appearance (than are women focused on and pleased by men’s appearance).  Here are three signs that this is true:

    first, women desire and usually have a far larger wardrobe and wear far more jewelry than men do;


    second,
    women take many other pains to look attractive for men, such as wearing makeup, getting their hair curled or permed, etc., and
    third, men’s clothes and shoes are more practical and serviceable.  By contrast, women’s clothes and shoes are much more likely to be less comfortable because they are more designed to please men rather than for comfort.  (For example, women’s shoes are designed to make a woman’s foot look smaller.) 
     

    2.    It is important for an unmarried man who is called to the married vocation (and not to the life of consecrated virginity) to have prominently featured in his “blue print” of the future spouse he seeks, that she possess and love this great treasure of the Catholic standard of holy modesty; 

    3.    It is important for a man to know the Catholic standard of feminine modesty so that he can give moral support and defend the modesty of good women against scoffers, mockers, and other enemies of Our Lord.  (For example, it is all too often that women who take modesty seriously are made to feel prudish and isolated, especially by other women who have a more liberal dress code.)  Men should be gallant and gentlemanly.  They should defend women, especially good women who are living the standards of modesty and other virtues;

     

    4.    It is important for a man to know the Catholic standard of feminine modesty because he will be responsible for guiding his wife and daughters (when God sends him his own family) and will be ultimately responsible for this standard being implemented in his own home and family; and

     

    5.    It is important for a man to know the Catholic standard of feminine modesty so he can love this beautiful virtue and admire and appreciate the Mary-like women and girls who practice it.

     

    Four Reasons Women Should Not Wear Pants

    There are four reasons why it is a sin for women to wear pants:

    1.    It is objectively a sin against the revealed Divine Law for a woman to wear pants;

    2.    It is objectively a sin of lewdness[1] under the Natural Law for a woman to wear pants, even apart from the issue of pants being more revealing of a woman’s body;

    3.    A woman who wears pants objectively commits a sin of feminist usurpation of man’s role and “nature” and denial of her own “nature” and role in God’s plan; and

    4.    A woman wearing pants objectively sins because pants are immodest for her due to their revealing too much of her figure.

    Below, we consider each of these reasons.


    1.     It is Objectively a Sin against the
    Revealed Divine Law for Women to Wear Pants.

    God has revealed His law that it is evil for a woman to wear a man’s clothes (and also for men to wear women’s clothes).  Here are the words of God’s law:

    Let not a woman wear men’s clothes nor a man use women’s clothes.  For they are abominable with the Lord who do such things.

     

    Deuteronomy, 22:5.

    One article of man’s clothing is pants.  Although at any time in history, one can find deviant persons wearing clothes which are taboo in order to get attention or to shock those around them, nonetheless, it only relatively-recently that the enemies of Christ succeeded to such an extent in their cultural revolution that society more generally was desensitized to women wearing pants so that it became no longer shocking to most people.  This occurred roughly in the revolutionary 1960s, when society also became desensitized to other evils such as to tattoos[2], to cremation[3], to rock and roll “music”, and to wives and mothers being career women[4].  These things are still sins despite most people accepting them.

    One history of women wearing pants (published by Time Magazine), noted that the popular fashion magazine, Vogue, did not print a picture of a woman wearing pants until 1939 and that people were shocked by that picture.  Here is that entry in that history:

    It wasn’t until 1939 that Vogue pictured its first woman wearing slacks in a spread, at a time when those garments still weren’t widely worn by women and had the power to shock.[5]

    Citing a book on women’s clothes and their style during the 1900s, another history called it “radical” that society began to accept women wearing pants.  Here are the words of this history:

    “One of the most radical developments for women was the gradual acceptance of trousers, which were no longer considered either eccentric or strictly utilitarian,” write historians Valerie Mendes and Amy de la Haye in their book, 20th Century Fashion.[6]

    This history correctly calls this change “radical” because, as a third history remarks, “wearing trousers was considered shocking by many women at the beginning of the 20th century”.[7]

    Lastly, a fourth history (of women wearing pants) points specifically to the cultural revolution of the 1960s as the turning point in which women in pants had become common enough that there was no longer much outrage at the practice.  Here is how that history phrases it:

    By the time the counter-culture movement of the 1960s had reached its height, a woman in pants wasn’t much to be outraged by, even if in workplaces pants remained the preserve of men for a while longer.[8]

    In a 1977 New York Times retrospective on feminism’s effect on women’s “fashion”, the newspaper explains that:

    The early 1970s was the period [in which] … women seeking to express their individuality wore pants.[9]

    This, of course, is because such women thought themselves to be showing “individuality” because women wearing this men’s garment was still uncommon then.

    This 1977 New York Times article continued, pointing particularly to the influence of a fashion corrupter named Calvin Klein, who led this revolution in women’s “fashion”:

    Calvin Klein was instantly successful with clothes that were influenced by menswear — pants, tailored coats and jackets. “Ten years ago [i.e., 1967] a woman wore pants as a way of showing daring and security in herself,” he says ….[10]

    The reason why it was considered “daring” for a woman to wear pants in the 1960s and early 1970s, is because society considered her to be provocative by wearing men’s clothes.

    So, we see that our culture was not degraded enough until roughly the 1960s or 1970s, and only then was society callous enough to no longer be shocked by women wearing these men’s garments.

    It is true that a person could wonder whether women wearing pants was accepted in other parts of the world earlier.  It seems that in some places in the world, where a false and corrupt “religion” formed a different and corrupt “culture”, women wearing pants was accepted earlier because the “culture” was worse. 

    However, in former Christendom (the Western World), which had been formed by the Catholic Faith, and by true Catholic culture, women wearing pants was not generally accepted earlier.  It was only when (former) Christendom had slid far enough into degradation that people were no longer shocked by women wearing pants.  Again, this was roughly in the 1960s – 1970s.  Only then had Our Lord’s enemies sufficiently prevailed in their cultural revolution.


    (To be Continued)

     

     



    [1]           Lewdness (noun): indecency or obscenity; vulgar sexual character or behavior.  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lewdness

    [2]           Society began to view tattoos as neither shocking nor deviant at roughly the same time (the revolutionary 1960s) as society began considering women wearing pants as acceptable and not shocking.  Read this article here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/tattoos-are-a-sin-to-obtain-and-a-sin-to-display

    [3]           Society began to view cremation as neither pagan nor barbaric at roughly the same time (the revolutionary 1960s) as society began considering women wearing pants as acceptable and not shocking.  Read this article here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/cremation-is-barbaric

    [4]           Society began to view it as acceptable for wives and mothers to abandon their role in life at roughly the same time (the revolutionary 1960s) as society began considering women wearing pants as acceptable and not shocking.  Read this article here: The Role and Work that God Gave to Woman, https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/02/the-role-and-work-that-god-gave-to-woman/

     

    [6]           History of Women Wearing Pants, found here: https://qz.com/quartzy/1597688/a-brief-history-of-women-in-pants

    [8]           History of Women Wearing Pants: https://qz.com/quartzy/1597688/a-brief-history-of-women-in-pants

    Marylike Neckline Modesty

    A Brief Consideration of One Requirement for Marylike Modesty

    Here is one requirement of modesty for women and girls:

    Marylike dress requires full coverage for the bodice, chest, shoulders and back; except for a cut-out about the neck not exceeding two fingers’ breadth below the neckline in front and in back and a corresponding two fingers’ breadth on the shoulders.

     

    Quoted from the Decree of Pope Pius XI, 12 January 1930, through his Sacred Congregation of the Council.


    Catholic Candle note: Here we focus on one aspect of proper clothing for the upper body – which is only one of many conditions required for fulfilling the Catholic standard of Marylike modesty for women and girls.  Catholic Candle will write about the Catholic standard for skirts/dresses and other aspects of modesty in future articles.


    Please note the following nine consequences that flow directly from the above Catholic requirement of Marylike modesty:

    1.    This standard is not declared to be the ideal, but rather is the minimum to avoid sin.  It is certainly a spirit contrary to the love of God and to the love of virtue for a Catholic to try to “get as close to sin as possible without crossing the line into sin”.  Thus, a Marylike spirit of modesty would not aim merely at the minimum modesty requirement as if it were the ideal.
     

    2.    This neckline standard applies all the way around a woman’s or girl’s neck, not only in front.

    3.    This standard requires clothes that stay in place so that they do not exceed this neckline condition.  Clothes are immodest if a woman or girl must “constantly fix” them because they keep slipping in one direction or another and thereby reveal more than is modest.

    4.    This standard requires clothes that maintain this minimum neckline modesty and do not reveal more even when she is bending or leaning forward.

    5.    This standard also applies to photographs, paintings, and statues, whether the woman or girl who is depicted is known or unknown.  It would obviously be illogical for a woman to carefully dress modestly herself but also to promote or display scandalous art on her wall (or scandalous pictures of her relatives hung with magnets on her refrigerator, etc.).  For the very same reason that she is forbidden to dress this way, a Catholic is forbidden to promote or display such immodest images.

     

    6.    This standard is not dependent upon the weather, because hot weather does not justify the sin of immodesty.

    7.    This standard does not change based on the activities in which the woman or girl is engaged.  Catholic modesty does not have an exception for swimming or athletic pursuits.

     

    8.    Parents, especially fathers, have a duty to guide the women and girls under their care and enforce this Catholic standard of modesty.

     

    9.    Parents, especially mothers, have a duty to guide their daughters not only to comply with this Marylike neckline standard (and other aspects of modesty), but to love modesty.

    One final consideration: We live in pagan times.  Let us beware of rationalizing immodesty by saying that this standard of Marylike modesty is old fashioned and that we live in modern times where the requirements of modesty are weaker.  Here is Pope Pius XII’s warning against this excuse:

    The most insidious of sophisms, which are usually repeated to justify immodesty, seems to be the same everywhere.  One of these resurrects the ancient saying “let there be no argument about things we are accustomed to”, in order to brand as old fashioned the rebellion of honest people against fashions which are too bold…

     

    Pope Pius XII, Address to the Latin Union of High Fashion, November 8, 1957.

    Conclusion

    Let women and girls love to always dress with Marylike modesty! 

    Let men and boys appreciate, admire, and defend women and girls who dress modestly!

    How to fight feminism – Part III

    Catholic Candle note: Previously, we saw how the program of feminism is, at its core, the same as the program of Satan and the Marxists.  Read the analysis of this program, which begins here:

      https://catholiccandle.org/2022/02/24/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx/

      and which proceeds through a total of seven parts, ending with this seventh part: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/08/26/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-vii/

    Because we are Soldiers of Christ, we must fight feminism like we fight Satan and Marxism, because they all attack Christ the King and His Reign.  Below is part 3, the final part of Catholic Candle’s article explaining an effective way to fight the evils of feminism.  The first part of this article was published in the November 2022 issue of Catholic Candle and is also available here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/11/28/1917/

    The second part was published in December 2022 and is also available here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/12/21/how-to-fight-feminism-part-ii/

     

    How to Fight Feminism – Part 3

    In this article’s part 2, we saw how the feminists follow the Marxists (and Satan) by hating – and seeking to destroy – monogamy because they reject the goodness and the importance of monogamy, which are shown by reason, by the Natural Law, and by God. 

    In that part 2, we saw how the feminists and Marxists hate the special friendship and special fidelity which exists between good spouses.  The feminists and Marxists seek to destroy monogamy because they desire to promote disharmony, hatred, and division between persons (as is shown in the seven-part article linked above). 

    Polygamy (the destruction of monogamy) fosters jealousy, distrust, disharmony, hatred, and a divisive spirit.  By contrast, monogamy fosters unity, harmony, trust, generosity, and love.  A man and his wife (but especially the wife) have a singular focus on pleasing the other.  As St. Paul teaches:

    [S]he that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

    1 Corinthians, 7:34.

    But if there could be multiple so-called “husbands” or so-called “wives”, this good and natural focus on each pleasing the other above all other people, could not exist.

    Further, polygamy causes jealousy as the wife compares how her husband treats her compared to his other so-called “wife” (or “wives”).  Foreseeably, one of the two women would think that their supposedly joint “husband” treats his “other wife” better than he treats her or that he treats his “other wife’s” children better than he treats her children.  Also, she would often think, because of the way her husband acts, looks, and what he says, that he loves the other so-called “wife” more than her, etc.  The same would apply among the men, if there could be multiple so-called “husbands”.

    Moreover, destroying monogamy is extremely disruptive to the family and throws its God-given order into disarray.  A husband is the head of his home, by the Natural Law and by God’s revealed law.  The wife is the heart of her home for the same reasons.  Without monogamy, a family would be disordered and would resemble a monster – with multiple heads or multiple hearts.

    Also, with multiple so-called “husbands” there would often be life-long doubt concerning who the father of the mother’s child is.  This would cause many problems.


    So how can we defend monogamy and fight the feminists’ and Marxists’ attack on it?

    We now see better the importance of defending monogamy against the enemies of God and society.  But how do we do that?

    First, we must promote monogamy!  We must praise and honor monogamy and the unique fidelity proper to spouses.  We should do this especially by praising couples who have faithfully fulfilled their marriage vows for a long time.  For example, at weddings there is a customary dance where the announcer calls off the dance floor “every couple married for less than one day” (viz., the newlyweds), then, a little later, “every couple married for less than one year”; then less than five years, and so on until the last couple is alone on the dance floor.  Then everyone gives them a big round of applause.  This is a fitting way to honor monogamous fidelity in marriage and years of wedded bliss.  It is a way to honor that accomplishment itself, even when the couple is unknown to most people in the room.


    Importance of Not Treating False “Marriages” as if they were True Marriages

    To defend monogamy, we must avoid condoning the false so-called “marriages” and so-called “spouses” of those who are divorced and “remarried”.  Such “remarriage” is an abject failure, a public mortal sin, and an attack on monogamy. 

    Even if a close relative is involved in this tragedy, the false “spouse” should not be accepted, given gifts, or allowed in the homes of Catholics.  The false “spouse” should be treated like a pariah for three reasons:

      The false “spouse” would be included solely because of the supposed “marriage”, so treating the false “spouse” like a real spouse would be lying by our actions;

      Treating the false “spouse” like a real spouse is a scandal and bad example; and

      Refusing to treat the false “spouse” like a real spouse can be a help to causing the false “spouses” to make their lives right with God, with the Catholic Church, with reason, and with the Natural Law.

    To treat an adulterous relationship as if it were a faithful marriage, constitutes a lie not only for their relatives but also for anyone else who “plays along” with the charade.  This lie, in a way, is no less false than for some so-called “transgender woman” (who is really a biological man) to be treated as if he were really a girl.  In both situations, we would be violating reason and flaunting God’s law, showing that (sinful) human respect is more important to us than the Truth and the love of God. 


    Concerning the Careful Reserve that Spouses Should Exhibit toward Others of the Opposite Sex

    To protect monogamy and the precious fidelity between spouses, each spouse should exhibit due reserve and appropriate distance around other persons of the opposite sex.  The general standard (for reserve and distance) is no less than (but maybe more than) the minimum that one’s spouse would desire, even if that spouse is not present.  When one of two persons is married, then any flirting or “free” manners between them disrespects monogamy, marriage, and his (her) spouse.

    Although this is always true, such reserve and appropriate distance is not the same in all circumstances, e.g., the distance a married man would keep from an aged, widowed, neighbor lady, would not be the same as the sisterly reserve he would show to his sister-in-law, and both of these would be much different than the even greater reserve he would show to the friendly young lady behind the counter at the coffee shop that he patronizes regularly.  Such due reserve is part of honoring, protecting, and defending monogamy.  Obviously, this decorum should not only be practiced by married persons but also by unmarried persons in relation to married persons of the opposite sex.


    The Feminist’s Attack on Monogamy by Promoting Impurity

    An important reason why feminists (and Marxists) hate monogamy is because they hate purity.  Free license to indulge every urge of passion results in destroying a person’s purity, personality, and character.  Kate Millet and other founders of the National Organization of Women (NOW) singled out destruction of purity as their main method of destroying monogamy.

    Again (as quoted earlier in this article), here is the chant with which they opened their feminist meetings:

    “And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.

    “By destroying the American family!” they answered.

    “How do we destroy the family?” she came back.

    “By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.

    “And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.

    “By taking away his power!”

    “How do we do that?”

    “By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.

    “How can we destroy monogamy?” …

    By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!”, they resounded.[1]

    The Marxists and other servants of Satan follow the same program as the feminists do, promoting impurity, especially unnatural impurity.

    The trained Marxists who lead Black Lives Matter (BLM) also promote unnatural impurity and they view (and attack) purity as the enemy.  Here is one way BLM stated its position:

    We foster a queeraffirming network.  When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).[2]

    So, BLM is saying here that, when they gather, their intent is “liberation” from the normalcy of the Natural Law.  Here is one way that St. Paul described this filthy, shameless (so-called) “lifestyle”: 

    God delivered them up to shameful affections.  For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.  And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

    Romans, 1:26-27 (emphasis added).

    It is not by accident that feminists (especially their leaders) live lives of unnatural impurity.  Feminism leads to that (so-called) “lifestyle”.  As Ti-Grace Atkinson (board member and president of its New York City chapter of NOW) explained:

    Feminism is the theory; lesbianism is the practice.[3]

    In other words, although gullible and naïve persons don’t understand this fact, feminism is the explanation (or worldview), which leads to, results in, and explains unnatural impurity.

    Because the feminist movement leads to this life of unnatural vice, feminism seeks to break down women’s and girls’ modesty, purity, reserve, and natural bashfulness by continually exposing them to shamelessness, promiscuity, eroticism, and continual contact with filth (impurity) of all kinds.

    Thus, among the 45 goals which the communists listed as means to take over the United States, these three goals (#24 – #26) seek to destroy the nation’s purity: 

    24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press. 

    25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. 

    26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, and healthy.”[4]

    One reason that the feminists, Marxists, and the so-called “racial justice” movement all promote impurity (especially unnatural vice) is because they follow Satan’s program.  Satan is like a “vulture” in the spiritual realm seeking to “devour” the spiritual “carrion”, i.e., souls which are dead and are reeking with the “stench” of mortal sin.

    But there is a further reason these groups promote the vilest impurities.  These sins of impurity (especially unnatural impurity) more than other sins, most effectively dull the mind,[5] weaken the will, and destroy the character.[6]  Satan, the Marxists, and the feminists strongly promote unnatural impurity because a society is defenseless to their cultural revolution when people are weak-willed and dull-witted because they are steeped in the vice of impurity.

    This is obvious.  But let us look at this truth a little deeper.  If a man is impure, he is weak and is a slave to lust.  By contrast, purity is strong.  Here is how St. Augustine refers to this fact, while addressing himself to God:

    You formed the living soul of the faithful by bringing their passions into control under the strength of continence.[7]

    The Confessions of St. Augustine, Bk. 13, ch.34.

    Because continence and purity are strong, Satan, the Marxists, and the feminists know that their cultural revolution requires that they bring society to the weakness of incontinence[8] and impurity.

    St. Paul teaches the same thing as St. Augustine, viz., that purity is strong, teaching us this and giving us this crucial example:

    I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection.

    1 Corinthians, 9:27.

    Impurity constitutes being conquered by our body (i.e., passions).  Using St. Paul’s words, impurity is a means by which our bodily passions bring US into subjection.  Plainly, we cannot fight exterior enemies (e.g., the feminists and Marxists) if we ourselves are slaves and have already been brought into subjection by our interior enemies (i.e., disorderly passions).  Thus, our enemies know with satanic cunning, that our subjection to impurity is crucial to their subjugating us in a cultural revolution.


    What can we do to fight the feminists’ promotion of impurity?

    As explained in part 1 in this article, to fight feminism, we must see what the feminists particularly attack and then we must concentrate our defenses there.  So, we see (above) that they are attacking purity in order to attack monogamy because purity is the safeguard of monogamy.  Therefore, (as already intimated above), we must defend monogamy, by promoting and defending the safeguards of monogamy, viz., the related virtues of purity, modesty, custody of our eyes, custody of our thoughts, and custody of our imagination.  We know this not only though our Catholic Faith but also through the Natural Law (e.g., as masterfully set out in Aristotle’s treatise called The Nichomachean Ethics).

    We must not be ashamed that our standard of modesty is different from (and stricter than) the world’s standard and is also much firmer than those who call themselves “Traditional Catholics” but who partially follow the fashions of the world.  For example, their women wear trousers (which are men’s clothing) like the world does, but they wear what they would euphemistically call “modest”, “women’s” trousers.

    Faithful and informed Traditional Catholics must dress differently than the world, as well as act differently.  As one of the more senior members of the Catholic Candle Team emphasized to his own children when he was raising them: “You are going to dress differently because you are different” (emphasis in his voice).

    In our pagan and corrupt times, if our attire does not proclaim that we are different – very different – then we are not dressing the way we should.  This point is sometimes made in a slightly amusing way, as follows: “When it becomes a criminal offense to be Catholic, may there be enough evidence to convict you.

    Thus, we see that the virtue of purity plays a key role in the fight against the feminists’ cultural revolution.  (Of course, purity plays a key role in saving our own souls too, as we remember that Our Lady revealed to us at Fatima that more people go to Hell because of sins of impurity than for any other reason.) 

    Part of the essential purity we must have and must promote among others, is the strong custody of our eyes, custody of our thoughts, and custody of our imagination.  On the most basic level, these custodies are essential for avoiding lust (which, as we know, is one of the seven deadly sins).  As Our Lord teaches us in the Sermon on the Mount about the lack of these three custodies:

    Whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.

    St. Matthew’s Gospel, 5:28.

    But, looking deeper, we see that these three custodies are mandatory not only to avoid mortal sins of lust, but also to avoid other unnecessary occasions of sin. 

    God made women the more beautiful sex and made men attracted to them.  Even aside from a man looking upon a woman with lust, if he looks upon her to simply and chastely admire her beauty, is that a good idea?  Well, in some circumstances it is, but not in others.  For example, it would usually be a good idea for a man to admire the beauty of his own wife.  This would be a natural help in his fulfilling his vocation. 

    Also, it could be a good idea for an unmarried man whom God is calling to the married vocation to chastely admire an unmarried lady’s beauty.  God made her beautiful for such situations, as an aid to both of them fulfilling their vocations.

    But if he is already married, or if she is, then what business does he have to be giving himself over to admiring her?  It is not an aid to his vocation but is rather a potential and unnecessary occasion of sin, and a hindrance. 

    Similarly, if an unmarried woman is called to the married vocation and she makes herself attractive to (unmarried) men, in a modest manner, this would be an aspect of her doing her part to fulfill her vocation.  But if she is seeking to be admired for her beauty by married men or if she is a married women seeking to be admired by men who are not her husband, then that is a potential and unnecessary occasion of sin, and a hindrance – at least unless she has good reason to do so – perhaps, to honor her husband by her modest display of her beauty when it is reasonable that she does so – e.g., among their friends and acquaintances.  Although we need not treat this point further now, she (and all of us, at all times) must act according to reason and not mere vainglory. 

    We should keep Our Lord’s admonishment in mind;

    [F]or every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the Day of Judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

    St. Matthew’s Gospel, 12:36-37.

    The same admonition applies to idle thoughts and actions too.

    Thus, we see that we must pray daily for purity and encourage others to pray for purity.  We should praise purity and seek to make others esteem this great and strong virtue.  The same is true for modesty and the three custodies.

    We must be devoted to Our Lady, the Mother Most Pure and Mother Most Chaste, striving to make others devoted to her also. 

    We should be devoted to St. Joseph, who is the Lily of Purity, invoked in his litany as “Joseph Most Chaste” and “Chaste Guardian of Virgins”.  We can profitably use a St. Joseph cord of purity (which is a traditional sacramental and devotion).

    We should foster purity by fasting and by performing other mortifications generously and regularly.

    From all of the foregoing, we see that we should:

      Promote and defend modesty, strong custody of our eyes, custody of our thoughts and custody of our imagination, in order to:

      Promote and defend the virtue of purity, in order to:

      Promote and defend monogamy, in order to:

      Promote and defend patriarchal authority, in order to:

      Promote and defend the family, in order to:

      Defend society against the feminist/Marxist cultural revolution.

    Let us give ourselves wholly to this fight for Christ the King and His Mother Most Pure!



    [1]           Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives, found here: https://mallorymillett.com/?p=37 (emphasis added).

     

    [2]           Quoted from https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/ accessed on June 4, 2020 (emphasis added).  

     

    Beginning in about June 2020, conservatives noticed the BLM credo and its overt Marxism.  They began quoting it to warn the public about the encroaching Marxism throughout the Western World.  Sometime, in approximately September 2020, BLM removed this credo and substituted a vaguer and more generic one in its place.  Here is an archive copy of BLM’s Marxist credo we quote here.  https://web.archive.org/web/20200917194804/https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

     

    [3]           Quoted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_lesbianism (quoting these words of Ti-Grace Atkinson from a pamphlet called “Lesbianism and Feminism”, published by the Chicago Women’s Liberation Union in 1971, and then re-published in a book to be used in a college course.  This book is called Feminism and Sexuality: A Reader, by Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott, Columbia University Press, 1996.  The quote is found on p.282.    

    [4]           Quoted from the Congressional Record – Appendix, pp. A34-A35, Current Communist Goals, Extension of Remarks of Hon. A. S. Herlong, Jr. of Florida in the House of Representatives, Thursday, January 10, 1963.

    [5]               Here is how St. Thomas explains this truth:

     

    Intemperance [including impurity] is most disgraceful … because it is most repugnant to man’s glory … inasmuch as the pleasures which are the matter of intemperance dim the light of reason from which all the glory and beauty of virtue arises: wherefore these pleasures are described as being most slavish.

     

    Summa, IIa IIae, Q142, a.4 (emphasis added).

     

    [6]           Here is how St. Thomas explains this truth:

     

    Intemperance [including impurity] is most disgraceful … because it is most repugnant to human excellence, since it is about pleasures common to us and the lower animals, as stated above (Summa, IIa IIae, Q.141, a.3).  Wherefore it is written (Psalm 48:21): “Man, when he was in honor, did not understand: he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made like to them.”

     

    Summa, IIa IIae, Q142, a.4.

    [7]           A person has continence when he performs the actions of a particular virtue (e.g., temperance when eating), before he has the virtue itself – which is the habit of doing those good actions such as eating temperately.  In this sense, continence is not a virtue but it is the path to acquiring the virtue.  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.155, a.1.  (In a different sense not discussed here, “continence” can be called a virtue in the sense of the celibacy of a monk, etc.)

     

    When a person has continence, then he performs good actions despite a struggle occurring in his soul as he fights the unruly demands of his passions.  By contrast, when the person has the virtue itself, then his passions are conformed to reason and there is no more disorder in his passion which had previously fought his reason.  As a result, a person who possesses the virtue of temperance no longer has an interior struggle.  His passions have been so conformed with reason that they no longer seek to eat to excess and so his performance of virtuous acts is sweet, easy, and more meritorious.

    [8]           Like continence, incontinence is a person’s struggle with his disorderly passions except that the incontinent man yields to the demands of his unruly passions.  This is a sin and causes a weakening in the man, leading toward vice, which is the habit of committing the sin.

    How to fight feminism – Part II

    Catholic Candle note: Previously, we saw how the program of feminism is, at its core, the same as the program of Satan and the Marxists.  https://catholiccandle.org/2022/08/26/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-vii/

    Because we are Soldiers of Christ, we must fight feminism because it attacks Christ the King and His Reign.  Below, is part 2 of the article explaining how to fight feminism.  The first part of this article was published in the November 2022 issue of Catholic Candle and is available here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/11/28/1917/

    How to Fight Feminism – Part 1

    Defense of Patriarchy (continued)

    We pick up in part 2 of this article discussing a topic we did not finish in part 1 – viz., feminism’s attack on patriarchy.  We saw that Satan, the Marxists, and the feminists especially attack God’s order by attacking patriarchy.  God is a patriarch – in fact He is THE Patriarch.  Just as the goodness of creatures is a participation in His Goodness, similarly, the patriarchy of creatures is a participation in His Patriarchy.  As shown in previous articles[1], feminism is inherently anti-God and its attack on the patriarchy of men flows from the hatred of God and of God’s Patriarchy.

    Here is the beautiful way these truths about patriarchy are set forth by Mrs. Donna Steichen, the anti-feminist author of the exposé, Ungodly Rage, The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism:

    Under the feminist assault, patriarchy has come to be regarded as odious, even by patriarchs [such as the Catholic Church’s hierarchy].  Feminists denounce it as atavistic,[2] inherently inequitable, irredeemably oppressive. But they misunderstand the nature of women’s rights.  Recovering those rights will require that patriarchy be reclaimed.  Selfishness, like pride, is gender neutral.  So, patriarchy has sometimes been abused by sinners to justify their selfishness.  But the present agonies of the family, of secular society and of the Church all result from failure to meet patriarchal responsibilities, understood and lived as St. Paul outlined them.  …

     

    The term patriarchy refers to the male-headed family form and social system expressed in Scripture and existing everywhere in human society.  In the Church, it is a title referring to bishops who rank just below the Pope in jurisdiction, though Catholic feminists use the word to mean the male priesthood and the entire male hierarchy.  In all cases, it is properly an office, not a declaration of qualitative superiority.  …

     

    Feminist mythology to the contrary, the Church did not inflict inequality on women.  Catholicism in fact elevated women to a status they had never enjoyed in pre-Christian societies by venerating the Blessed Virgin Mary as the perfect model of human response to God, by consecrating marriage as a sacrament, by recognizing the family as the basic unit of society and by constantly teaching that [certain intimate] acts are the unique privilege of the married state.[3]

     

    Mrs. Steichen then beautifully explains the roles of men and women, as God intends them:

     

    The Church teaches that creation exists to raise up souls to God.  Woman’s natural vocation is irreplaceably at the heart of that purpose, where human nature is most plainly seen to be neither simply animal nor purely spiritual but a mysterious combination of both.  …  In the “domestic Church” of the family, where the future Church is born, they are the ones most immediately responsible for the physical and spiritual formation of the new generation through the transmission of faith and culture.  Their wisdom and generosity are essential in shaping the family as a holy and enduring center where each member is cherished not for what he does but because his immortal soul is of incalculable value.  It is in the family that all mankind’s labor is transmuted by love into the human and the personal.

     

    Parenthood is a work of eternal significance in which both parents share, but by nature woman is the one most deeply engrossed.  Her vocation is so much a part of herself that she becomes submerged in it; she is compelled by its demands always to be centered outside herself.  Certainly, motherhood is a demanding work, and it sometimes brings anguish as well as joy.  When a woman’s husband and children rise up and call her blessed, [Prov.31:28] she doubtless deserves their praise.  Some who deserve it never receive it; there are heroines of holiness struggling at the brutally difficult task of raising and supporting their children alone.  But even in the most painful circumstances, a mother usually finds that her baby awakens in her a previously unknown passion of protective love.  To have a life work so absorbing that it makes us forget ourselves is a great human privilege.

     

    Fathers are called by that name because they reflect God’s capacity to generate life outside Himself, a high honor and an awesome responsibility.  A father’s role is of great importance; many women have lately discovered from painful experience how vital it is to family stability and the healthy psychological and moral development of children.  But normally he must be engaged elsewhere much of the time, dealing with the world, providing for his family’s material needs.  Only a fortunate minority of men find a work significant in itself.  For most, the knowledge that they are supporting their families is all that gives their labor meaning. 

     

    Patriarchy, properly interpreted, means men meeting their vocational obligations.  When a husband fulfills his responsibilities as St. Paul prescribes, his role is not one of domination but of service. 

     

    This is true and is like the pope, who has true, supreme, universal authority, but is called, as one of the titles which is uniquely his, the “servus servorum Dei” (meaning, the servant of the servants of God). This is because God gave him his authority to be used for the good of his flock, not for his own selfish advantage.  Similarly, a father’s authority and all other authority (all of which authority comes from God) must be used for the good of those under that authority.

     

    Mrs. Steichen continues:

     

    As husband and father, he is to negotiate with the outside world, provide for and protect his family, guide and direct it in consultation with his wife.  In normal human relationships, such consultation is broad ….[4]

     

     

    The Marxists and the Feminists are destroyers, following Satan their leader, Who is the Greatest Destroyer of All Time

    Like all revolutionaries, the Marxists and feminists are intent on destruction – following the lead of their father, Satan.  Satan is the world’s chief destroyer.  God is Goodness Itself and always creates good.  Satan always destroys good that God had created.  Satan promotes sin because it is the destruction of the good that God created. 

    As shown earlier in this article[5], Kate Millett and her co-founders of the National Organization of Women (NOW) planned to wage cultural revolution by:

      Destroying the family, through

     

      Destroying the father, through

      Destroying his power (authority), through

      Destroying monogamy.[6]

    Later in this article, we discuss the Marxists’ and feminists’ intent to destroy monogamy.  For now, we look at the Marxists’ and feminists’ intent to destroy the father through destroying his power/authority.  Here is how Kate Millett and her feminist co-conspirators phrased their plan to destroy a father’s authority:

    “And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?”

    “By taking away his power!”

    This is a Marxist/feminist attempt to destroy the social hierarchy, i.e., patriarchal authority/power.  But it is clear that God created hierarchy in everything, not only in the family and in the state, but in everything else, including in all living things.  For example, there are higher and lower animals; there is order among wolves in a pack, etc.  God created order in the human soul, e.g., with the passions subordinate to the will.  And likewise with the rest of creatures.  God beautifully orders them.  Satan does the opposite – viz., he throws them into disorder. 

    So, we must foster the order God created and directly fight the attempts by God’s enemies to destroy that order, especially in the family and society.  We must take as a fundamental principle what St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church, explains – that it is a complete disaster for a father not to be in charge of his home and family.  Quoting St. Augustine, St. Thomas teaches:

    What could be worse in a home than where a woman has rule over her husband?[7]

    This complete disaster (for society and for the family) of destroying the father’s authority in the family, is exactly what the feminists and communists seek.  Simone de Beauvoir, perhaps the best-known feminist of the twentieth century, admitted that they seek destruction of the father’s authority, using these words:

    A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised.[8]

    Sixty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson declared a “war on poverty” – but it was really a war on families and fathers.  Those “social programs” (welfare programs) only increased poverty and misery over the decades.  Thinking people who were alive at the time, could see that this would happen.  But it is obvious now, in hindsight, even to unthinking people.  Those welfare-type handouts were remarkably successful in destroying the family, by enabling out-of-wedlock births and irresponsible fathers.  This destruction of the family is all around us.

    One of countless ways we see this destruction is in the young men who are so troubled, depressed, and often suicidal, that they irrationally resort to shooting-up schools.  They grow up without a father at home.  In other words, they are Dad-deprived.[9]  Of course, boys need their mothers too.  But the common thread in the lives of the young men who commit these “mass-shootings” is that they lacked a father at home.

    Those boys and young men need a firm, serious and attentive father, who is present every day providing for his family.  They need the type of father described in the Book of Proverbs:

    Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend that you may know prudence.  I will give you a good gift, forsake not my law.  For I also was my father’s son, tender and as an only son in the sight of my mother: And he taught me, and said:  Let thy heart receive my words, keep my commandments, and thou shalt live.  Get wisdom, get prudence: forget not, neither decline from the words of my mouth.

    Book of Proverbs, 4:1-5.

    These are the natural order and the supernatural order which God created.  How different from this is the Marxist/feminist plan for revolution!  God made men to be leaders and to be the counselors of their wives and children, as the Book of Proverbs sets out.

    Because God’s enemies are in charge of the entertainment industry, another way they effectively destroy paternal authority is by completely emptying out the concept of fatherhood and intentionally mocking it.  Especially beginning forty years ago, fathers (and men in general) were portrayed as flawed, weak, selfish, and foolish.  The mothers, often single, were in charge and provided wisdom, maturity, and strength.  Not many years after that, children’s shows cast the children in adult situations acting with maturity, cleverness, and success.  If a Dad were portrayed at all in such shows, he was clumsy, selfish, boorish, and played the role of comic relief.  The kids solved their own problems because the parents (especially the fathers) were too bigoted, incompetent, and narrow-minded to help or to contribute to modern society.

    Pope Francis, who promotes the entire leftist/globalist agenda, also does his part to destroy paternal authority, especially his own universal patriarchy.  In the same way that the entertainment industry erodes fatherly authority and fathers, so does Pope Francis, by, for example:

      Wearing a clown nose in public, mocking his solemn office:

    eBuffoon Pope 1

      And wearing a balloon “miter”:

    Pope Francis new tiara

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

                                            

     

     

    Pope Francis not only mocks his own authority but he promotes feminism, e.g., claiming that feminism originates from the Holy Ghost.  Here are his words:

    If certain forms of feminism have arisen which we must consider inadequate, we must nonetheless see in the women’s movement the working of the Spirit for a clearer recognition of the dignity and rights of women.

    Amoris Laetitia, Section 54 (emphasis added).

     

    Summary so far, regarding this Section on Patriarchy

    The above analysis helps us to focus our minds and our efforts upon the best ways for us to defend (and to counterattack) against the feminists’ cultural revolution.  For the honor of God and for the good of society, we must especially fight to defend what Satan’s tools are especially attacking. 

    Because this attack on our civilization is especially an attack on patriarchy, we must support and emphasize the importance of the husband and father in the role God gave to him in both the natural and supernatural orders.  That is, we must strongly support patriarchy as an institution.  We must emphasize its importance, praise it, and lead others to esteem it greatly.  Of course, we must condemn and oppose selfish patriarchs who rule for their own private pleasure, just as we must oppose all sin.

    We should emphasize that the patriarch is the head of his family.  He should be the sole “breadwinner” supporting his family.[10]  If he cannot support his family in the job he has, then he has the wrong job, or he needs a second job, or he needs to implement a family budget with lower expenditures.  An austere economic life is not shameful for a family but the wife and mother working outside the home is shameful.[11]  How blamable is the man who pushes his wife to abandon her crucial role in the home in order to bring in money!

     

    The Marxists and Feminists Attempt to Destroy Patriarchy by Destroying Monogamy

    We see above the Marxist/feminist plan to destroy the family by destroying patriarchy.  Those enemies of Christ the King planned to destroy patriarchy by destroying monogamy. 

    As a reminder to the reader, here is a portion of that plan in context.  Radical feminist leader, Kate Millett, and her co-founders of the National Organization of Women (NOW) were plotting how they would wage cultural revolution.  Here are their words:

    “And how do we make Cultural Revolution?”

    “By destroying the American family!”

    “How do we destroy the family?”

    “By destroying the American Patriarch.”

    “And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?”

    “By taking away his power!”

    “How do we do that?”

    By destroying monogamy![12]

    This feminist attack on monogamy is merely following the plan of Satan and the Marxists.  Marx’s colleague and co-author, Frederick Engels, identified monogamy as a key obstacle which must be removed in order to achieve the communist cultural revolution.  Here is one way in which Engels expressed the communist’s war on monogamy:

    The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male.[13]

    Thus, we see the typical Marxist tactic: set one group in society against some other group.  Again, as we have seen, Marxism is all about dividing people into groups and setting them at war with each other, to weaken society and conquer it.[14]

    Engels continues:

    Then it will be plain that the first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and that this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society.[15]

    We see here, as always, that the program of the feminists is the same as the Marxists (here, it is a war on monogamy).  Further, as always, we discern the unmistakable reek of Satan’s work (in this attack on monogamy), just like the remainder of the feminist and Marxist program.

    Satan, the Marxists, and the feminists hate monogamy because they hate the Natural Law.[16]  They hate the Natural Law because they hate God, the Creator of the Natural Law as well as of the revealed law.

    Monogamy and the indissolubility of marriage are tenets of the Natural Law[17] (and reason) as well as of the revealed law.  Our Lord commanded:

    What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

    St. Matthew’s Gospel, 19:6.

    Our Lord noted that Moses allowed divorce because, as the Doctors of the Church explain, the evil Israelite husbands would have otherwise murdered their wives to be rid of them.[18]  Thus, Moses allowed one Natural Law (marriage) to be broken in order avoid the breaking of an even greater Natural Law, viz., “Do not murder.”

    However, Our Lord says (about Moses allowing divorce): “but from the beginning it was not so.”[19]  In other words, divorce was not allowed starting in the beginning of creation, showing that marriage is indissoluble under the Natural Law.[20]

    Thus, we see that “serial polygamy” is evil, i.e., divorcing one person to “marry” another.  Monogamy is required by God both under the Natural Law (and reason) and under the revealed law.

    Even more obviously, God and Nature require monogamy to the exclusion of having multiple wives (or multiple husbands, or multiple “partners”) at the same time.  Our Lord taught:

    [A] man leaves father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.  Therefore, now they are not two, but one flesh.

    St. Matthew’s Gospel, 19:5-6 (emphasis added).

    Further, we see that monogamy is part of the Natural Law, in that the acts which are proper to marriage are between two, a husband and his wife, not more than two.

    St. Paul made clear that marriage involves an exclusivity of rights in marriage which requires monogamy and is incompatible with polygamy.  St. Paul teaches: 

    The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband.  And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

    1 Corinthians, 7:4.

    A lack of monogamy inherently destroys the unique fidelity which the spouses owe to each other in marriage.

    Further, God intended that a man and his wife should be the very best lifelong friends.  Here is one way St. Thomas explains this truth:

    The greater the friendship, the firmer and the more lasting it is.  Now, between husband and wife there seems to be the greatest friendship; for they join … for the sharing of all of home life; hence a sign of this is that man leaves even his father and mother for the sake of his wife.[21]

    But the greatest of friendship cannot be between more than two.  Because a person cannot have two best friends, when there are more than two friends and when there is a dispute, “either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other.”  St. Matthew’s Gospel, 6:24.

    So, with more than two spouses (if it could be), there would not be such a best friendship, and they would not signify Christ and His Church, as spouses should.  Ephesians, 5:31-32.

    In part 3 of this article, we will see how the Marxist and feminist attack on monogamy is an attack on the virtue of purity.

    To be Continued

     

     

     

     



    [2]           Atavism is: recurrence of or reversion to a past style, manner, outlook, approach, or activityhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atavism

     

    [3]           Ungodly Rage, The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism, By Mrs. Donna Steichen, Ignatius Press, San Francisco ©1991, page 226 (bracketed euphemistic words used for delicacy).

    [4]           Ungodly Rage, The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism, By Mrs. Donna Steichen, Ignatius Press, San Francisco ©1991, page 227 (bracketed euphemistic words used for delicacy).

     

    [6]           Quoted from the eye witness account of her sister, Mallory Millett, recounted here: https://mallorymillett.com/?p=37

    [7]           The Latin is: “Quid enim pejus est domo ubi femina habet imperium super virum?”  Catena Aurea on St. John’s Gospel, ch. 1, #13.

    [8]           Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, New York, Random House, ©1952, p.806.

    [10]             Here is how Pope Pius XII taught this truth, addressing wives in an allocution to newlyweds:

    it is the duty of your husband to work to provide the necessities for the home ….

    Pius XII, Allocution to newly-weds of March 11, 1942, quoted in The Woman in the Modern World, arranged by The Monks of Solesmes, Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1958, pp. 83-85

     

    [11]         Here is one way that Pope Benedict XV taught this truth:

     

    It is in fact amazing what the woman can do for the good of the human race, or for its ruin; if she should leave the common – [i.e., traditional] – road, both the civil and domestic orders are easily upset.

     

    With the decline in religion, cultured women have lost their piety, also their sense of shame; many, in order to 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.

     

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

     

    The feminists hate the role God gave to women.  As reason, the Natural Law, and our Catholic Faith show us, women’s role is exceedingly important but that role is not to be patriarchs – the heads of the family or of public society.  The sublime role of women is outlined here: https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/02/the-role-and-work-that-god-gave-to-woman/

     

    We are, of course, aware that there are dire situations in which women simply must work outside the home – even women who are mothers of children.  This would usually be the case when the father is not present or is dead.  Our point here is that such situations are an objective evil (that is, a lack of a due good) and are a deviation from God’s plan.  This is the case even if on her part, her intentions were perfect, she has no sin, and is making even heroic efforts.  But we should be very wary of a “slippery slope” mentality.  Her decision to work should only be made after consultation with a strict, no-nonsense advisor, during which it becomes clear that there is no other way to support the children, and that she has absolutely no impure motives of “an easier life”, “more spending money”, etc.

    [12]         Quoted from the eye witness account of her sister, Mallory Millett, recounted here: https://mallorymillett.com/?p=37 (emphasis added).

     

    [13]         Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, Frederick Engels, 1884 (emphasis added), which can be found here: Downloaded from https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm

    [15]         Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, Frederick Engels, 1884 (emphasis added), which can be found here: Downloaded from https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm

    [16]         The Natural Law is what we know we must do by the light of the natural reason God gave us.  One example of the Natural Law is that we must never tell a lie.  We naturally know this because we know that the purpose of speech is to convey the truth and so we naturally know that telling a lie is abusing the purpose of speech. 

     

    Here is how St. Thomas explains what the Natural Law is:

     

    [L]aw, being a rule and measure, can be in a person in two ways: in one way, as in him that rules and measures; in another way, as in that which is ruled and measured, since a thing is ruled and measured, in so far as it partakes of the rule or measure.  Wherefore, since all things subject to Divine providence are ruled and measured by the eternal law, as was stated above [in Summa, Ia IIae, Q.91, a.1]; it is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends.  Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident both for itself and for others.  Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law.  Hence the Psalmist after saying (Psalm 4:6): "Offer up the sacrifice of justice," as though someone asked what the works of justice are, adds: "Many say, Who showeth us good things?" in answer to which question he says: "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us": thus implying that the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature’s participation of the eternal law.

     

    Summa, Ia IIae, Q.91, a.2, respondeo.

    [17]         Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Suppl., Q.67, a.1.


    [18]         See, e.g., Catena Aurea on St. Matthew’s Gospel, 5:31-32, St. Thomas Aquinas quoting St. John Chrysostom.

    [19]         St. Matthew’s Gospel, 19:7-8.  Here is the longer quote:

     

    They say to him:  Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away?  He saith to them:  Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives:  but from the beginning it was not so.

    Emphasis added.

    [20]         Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Suppl., Q.67, a.1.

    [21]         Summa Contra Gentiles, St. Thomas Aquinas, ch.123, §6 (emphasis added).

    How to fight feminism – Part I

    Catholic Candle note: The article below pertains to fighting feminism because it is the program of Our Lord’s enemies (who are our enemies too).  Previously, we saw how the program of the feminists is the same program as Satan and the Marxists.  https://catholiccandle.org/2022/08/26/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-vii/

    How to Fight Feminism – Part 1

    Feminism is a tool of Satan and the Marxists.  Previously, we saw that feminism was merely an application to specific circumstances (i.e., with women as a subject rather than blacks or persons living lives of unnatural impurity) of the more general program which Satan and the Marxists use to wage war upon Western Civilization (the remnants of Christendom).

    These are the circumstances in which we live.  So, what should be do?  Of course, the answer is that we should fight back!  We are soldiers of Christ!  The truth matters!  The coward’s life is a failure and is contemptible!  A coward dies a thousand deaths but a brave man only one![1]  When a man discovers that criminals have broken into his home, he sets to work opposing them!

    Just as the Council of Trent was part of a counterattack against the Protestant revolution, likewise, in our current times, where there is an on-going Marxist revolution, we must counterattack!  We must counter the enemies of Christ (who are also our own enemies).  So, e.g., when we see the enemy attacking our right flank, we must martial troops to meet them and push them back. 

    To effectively oppose these enemies, we must do what a wise military strategist does: we must study the enemies’ tactics and their methods of fighting to learn how to best defeat them.  Thus, to some extent, we must study what the enemy does and fight it by doing the opposite.

    The Satanic/Marxist/feminist attack on society can be framed in a variety of different ways which really “boil down” to the same eight-point Satanic/Marxist program we have already seen that they use.[2]  Below is one way this attack is sometimes framed.

    In 1969, the groundbreaking radical feminist leader, Kate Millett, would hold meetings with eleven of her friends in New York City during which they recited a type of litany, a feminist manifesto of sorts, or a plan of attack, that has proven to be remarkably effective.  Here is an eyewitness account of one of these meetings.  It opened with the chairwoman asking:

    “Why are we here today?”

    “To make revolution,” they answered.

    “What kind of revolution?”

    “The Cultural Revolution.”

    “And how do we make Cultural Revolution?”

    “By destroying the American family!”

    “How do we destroy the family?”

    “By destroying the American Patriarch.”

    “And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?”

    “By taking away his power!”

    “How do we do that?”

    “By destroying monogamy!”

    “How can we destroy monogamy?”

    “By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution, abortion, and homosexuality!”[3]

    So, let’s take these elements of their very effective feminist plan of attack and examine them, one-by-one.  This will help us to see how we can best defeat these enemies of Christ by fighting against their plan through our initiatives in exactly the opposite direction.

    We must Fight The Feminists’ Cultural Revolution

    In the first element of their chant, these feminist leaders say they are going to “make revolution”.  It was in this time period that Kate Millett wrote from New York to her sister:

    “Come to New York.  We’re making revolution!  Some of us are starting the National Organization of Women [N.O.W.] and you can be part of it.”[4]

    So, these feminist leaders declare they are waging a war – a revolution – against us, against society, etc.  We must oppose them!  They are attacking us and seek to destroy us!  We must fight them, counter-attacking and opposing them with all of our strength!

    This feminist goal is the same as Marxist Goal #31 (of 45 total goals) as read into the U.S. Congressional Record in 1963:

    31. Belittle all forms of American culture …[5]

    Just as a political revolution seeks to overthrow the government of a country, so a “cultural revolution” seeks to overthrow the culture of a country.  Our culture was formed and established by the Catholic Church, as She converted the heathen tribes of Europe, although it is true that this culture has been adulterated with Protestantism, which was the beginning of a descent into the so-called “Enlightenment” and further corruptions which increasingly distanced (former) Christendom from Our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Nonetheless, just as the high Catholic culture of Christendom was not “built in a day”, likewise, it is not destroyed in a day either.  There were the remnants of much good culture in the Western World that still remained, especially before Vatican II and before the 1960s.  It has taken hundreds of years for the enemies of Christendom to degrade society to what it was in the 1960s, at the beginning of the Marxist and feminist revolution.  (Of course, it has gotten much worse since then.)

    So, as we see the Marxists and feminists (and Satan’s other minions) focus on promoting cultural revolution, we must fight back by focusing on promoting cultural tradition, i.e., preserving our cultural heritage.  This work is the opposite of the revolution to overthrow our culture.

    There are many aspects of our fight to preserve our culture.  For example, we must fight to preserve good and beautiful music, e.g., Gregorian Chant and the music of Mozart.  We must seek to suppress the music of the rebellion and of the cultural revolution, e.g., rock and roll, rap, etc.

    Likewise, we must fight to preserve beautiful painting and other fine arts, against the attack of the cultural revolutionaries, who attack the uplifting beauty of good art.  This feminist attack on beauty is the same as Marxist Goal #22 and #23 (of 45 total goals) as read into the U.S. Congressional Record in 1963:

    22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression.  An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”

    23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”.[6] 

    Part of the culture of each nation is to know well its past and history.  This is natural and reasonable.  A family has a history and should know this history well.  A nation is, as it were, a family “writ large”.  Thus, the feminists’ cultural revolution includes an attack on our nation’s history, as also reflected in Marxist Goal #31 (of 45 total goals) as read into the U.S. Congressional Record in 1963: 

    31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.”  Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.[7]

    We see that American history is not only de-emphasized and dumbed-down but is also greatly falsified, e.g., in the leftists’ 1619 Project, falsely asserting that America was founded for the purpose to promoting slavery.  The same is occurring in all of the rest of former Christendom.

    The feminists and other Marxists attack good literature and replace it with debased stories and meaningless poetry.

    We see many attacks on our culture’s customs, rules of etiquette, and all manner of propriety.  For example, beginning in the 1960s the cultural revolutionaries promoted wearing blue jeans virtually everywhere.  Although blue jeans were not invented in the 1960s, the cultural revolutionaries promoted wearing them everywhere in order to degrade our culture and destroy the idea that what we wear should be appropriate for the particular occasion.  That is why, even back in the 1970s, one of the Catholic Candle Team members (who is a lifelong Traditional Catholic), did not allow his children to wear blue jeans out to parties or other events and occasions.  That principle still applies today.  Again, the feminists’ cultural revolution was (and is) destroying former Christendom’s customs, etiquette and propriety.

    Of course, the cultural revolutionaries viciously attack virtue, especially modesty and purity.  The enemies of our culture attacked true manliness and true womanliness (true femininity), along with attacking true virtue. 

    Against this feminist and Marxist cultural revolution, we must tirelessly promote what is traditional, godly, and according to the Natural Law, as well as according to the Catholic Faith.

    We Must Fight the Feminists’ Attack On The Family

    As we saw above, Kate Millett and the other founders of the National Organization of Women (N.O.W.) chanted (at their meetings) how they intend to wage their cultural revolution:

    “And how do we make Cultural Revolution?”

    Top of Form

    Bottom of Form

    “By destroying the American family!”

    Kate Millett and her co-conspirators correctly saw how essential it is to destroy the family in order for their revolution to succeed.  Satan, the Marxists, and feminists know that a revolution in the state will not succeed without destroying the family because the family is civil society’s first institution.  The state is built upon families (not upon individuals) as its primary building blocks.

    Thus, with satanic astuteness, the feminists promote the same evil goal (viz., destroying the family) as the Marxists do.  The Marxists’ revolutionary goals #40-41 (of 45 total goals) are listed as follows, as these goals were read into the U.S. Congressional Record in 1963:

    40. Discredit the family as an institution.  …

    41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents.  Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
    [8]

    The feminists are only part of a network of evil groups which promote Satan’s work and these groups all use the same satanic/Marxist plan and promote the same evils.  Black Lives Matter (“BLM”) is another example of a group which explicitly and intentionally opposes the natural, normal, God-given family.[9]  Here is how BLM states its anti-family credo:

    We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.[10]

    In this regard, Our Lord’s enemies agree with the popes and with the Catholic Church viz., that a successful revolution in the state requires a successful revolution in (i.e., destruction of) the family.  A good, non-Marxist state requires good non-Marxist families.  But when the family is destroyed, the state is in great peril and cannot survive.  Here is how Pope Pius XI explains the truth that the family is the foundation of civil society and is prior to the state in nature and rights:

    [T]here are three necessary societies, distinct from one another and yet harmoniously combined by God, into which man is born: two, namely the family and civil society, belong to the natural order; the third, the Church, to the supernatural order.

    In the first place comes the family, instituted directly by God for its peculiar purpose, the generation and formation of offspring; for this reason, it has priority of nature and therefore of rights over civil society.  Nevertheless, the family is an imperfect society, since it has not in itself all the means for its own complete development; whereas civil society is a perfect society, having in itself all the means for its peculiar end, which is the temporal well-being of the community; and so, in this respect, that is, in view of the common good, it has pre-eminence over the family, which finds its own suitable temporal perfection precisely in civil society.

    The third society, into which man is born when through Baptism he reaches the divine life of grace, is the Church; a society of the supernatural order and of universal extent; a perfect society, because it has in itself all the means required for its own end, which is the eternal salvation of mankind; hence it is supreme in its own domain.

    Divini Illius Magistri (On Christian Education) by Pope Pius XI, 1929, ¶¶11-13, (emphasis added).

    Against this feminist and Marxist cultural revolution, we must focus our minds and our efforts upon the best ways for us to defend (and to counterattack) against the feminists’ cultural revolution.  We must promote and support the family as an institution and we must defend it against attacks!  We must emphasize its importance, praise it, and lead others to esteem it greatly.

    We must fight against the selfish, me-first attitude of our present time in which young adults reject or unreasonably delay taking the concrete steps God Wills for them to take in order that they each find the spouse God intends and begin the life of their vocations.  (This leaves aside the impurity and other sins that typically accompany this failure to respond – or delay in responding – to God’s vocational call.)

    We Must Fight the Feminists’ Attack On Patriarchy

    Let us see the feminists’ strategy to destroy the family.   That will allow us to do our best to thwart this (and every other) element of this (evil) feminist revolution as framed by Kate Millett and her Marxist comrades. 

    Kate Millett and the other founders of the National Organization of Women (N.O.W.) chanted (at their meetings) the way in which they intended to wage their attack on the family:

    “How do we destroy the family?”

    “By destroying the American Patriarch.”[11]

    Kate Millett and her co-conspirators correctly saw how essential it is to destroy the patriarch of the family in order for their revolution to succeed.  The father (patriarch) is the protector and defender of the family.  The family is safe when its vigilant guardian is at his post.

    Satan, the Marxists, and feminists know that a revolution in the state will not succeed without destroying the family and this won’t happen if the patriarch is doing his duty. 

    The feminists join other Marxist groups, e.g., Black Lives Matter (“BLM”) which explicitly and intentionally opposes the natural, normal, God-given hierarchy of the family.  BLM declares its opposition to what it calls “heteropatriarchial imperialism”[12] – by which BLM means the authority of a father over his family.  (The misspelling of “patriarchal” is in the BLM original.)

    Another example, among countless others, is the anti-patriarchal attack of the French socialist and commune leader, Benoît Malon, who declared:

    What must happen is to completely abolish the authority of the father and his almost royal power in the family.  In effect, equality only will be perfect if this is achieved.  Aren’t the children of as great a value as the parents?  By what right do the latter command the former?  Enough of obedience!  Enough of inequality![13]

    Of course, Benoît Malon is a man, yet he is attacking the authority of men (fathers).  This should not surprise the reader.  Only superficial people care most about their own practical advantage.  Malon cared more about destroying the authority of patriarchs because he is a tool of the devil who hates paternity.  This is like the black BLM leaders praising Cuba’s (non-black) communist leaders who were oppressing black Cubans.[14]

    Again, in the quote above, the socialist, Benoît Malon, declared: “Enough of obedience!”  We see that this feminist/BLM/Marxist/satanic goal of destroying a father’s authority involves the obvious “stench” of Satan’s rebellion: “Non serviam!”  Satan and his servants love this destruction of patriarchy because this destruction opposes God Who is the Creator both of the Natural Law, and also of the supernatural law.

    In this regard, Our Lord’s enemies agree with the Catholic Church (and with sound reason) viz., that a successful revolution in the state requires a successful revolution in (i.e., destruction of) authority in the family.  A well-ordered state requires well-ordered families.  But when the order in the family is destroyed, the state is in great peril and cannot survive. 

    That is why the Church (and sound reason) defend a father’s authority in his family.  For example, St. Paul commands:

    Wives, be subject to your husbands.

    Colossians, 3:18.

    St. Paul further teaches:

    Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection.  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.

    1 Timothy, 2:11-12.

    A person could wrongly think that somehow a husband’s authority over his family – which is infallibly certain – is not founded upon the Natural Law but only upon Church Law.  However, the truth is that his authority is founded upon both.

    Entire books can be written showing the certitude of a man’s authority over his wife and children based on the Natural Law (i.e., the natural order of things) as well as upon Church Law.  However, for the present article, we include only a very few proofs showing that a man’s authority over his wife comes from nature and creation itself.

    Firstly, notice that God declares that he makes Adam’s wife, Eve, to be a helpmate for him.  This is a fact of nature itself and does not depend on future laws made by the Church.  Here are God’s words:

    And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself.  And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name.  And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself.

    Genesis, 2:18-20 (emphasis added).

    It is obvious that in any context, the helper is the assistant, not the main authority in the situation.  That is why, until the recent feminist revolution, a wife was traditionally[15] and commonly called her husband’s “helpmate”, because she was his inseparable helper.  By contrast, the husband is not called a “helpmate” to his wife, not because he does not help her (he certainly does!) but because he is the leader of the family.

    St. Paul also shows that the authority of man over woman is from nature, by appealing to the roots of this authority in creation itself.  Here are St. Paul’s words, appealing to the creation itself of man and woman:

    For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.  For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man.

    1 Corinthians, 11:8-9 (emphasis added).

    Another way we can see from infallible Scripture that Adam had authority over his wife is that he named her – he both named her “woman”[16] when God brought her to him[17] and also gave her the proper name, “Eve”.[18]  Just as parents name their children (and humans name their pets) so Adam named his wife showing he has authority over her (although, of course, this authority is not the same as a human naming a pet).

    Further, Eve listened to the Devil and was deceived.[19]  The sin of Adam, the Man, was far worse because he was not deceived by the Devil but chose to follow Eve, the Woman, into sin rather than to follow God.  Thus, God shows that Adam’s sin was to follow the leadership of his wife, rather than to lead her.  Here are God’s words:

    And to Adam He said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labor and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life.

    Genesis, 3:17 (emphasis added).

    From the above, it is clear that the revolution being waged by Satan’s tools, (including, but not limited to, the feminists), is an attack on the natural and supernatural order God created and which He intends.  In our fight against these evils, we must especially fight to defend what Satan’s tools are especially attacking.  We must do all that we can to uphold a father’s authority for the honor of God and for the good of society.

    To be Continued

     

     



    [1]             Cf., Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act II, scene 2.

    [3]           Quoted from the eye witness account of her sister, Mallory Millett, recounted here: https://mallorymillett.com/?p=37

    [5]           Quoted from the Congressional Record – Appendix, pp. A34-A35, Current Communist Goals, Extension of Remarks of Hon. A. S. Herlong, Jr. of Florida in the House of Representatives, Thursday, January 10, 1963.

    [6]           Quoted from the Congressional Record – Appendix, pp. A34-A35, Current Communist Goals, Extension of Remarks of Hon. A. S. Herlong, Jr. of Florida in the House of Representatives, Thursday, January 10, 1963.

    [7]           Quoted from the Congressional Record – Appendix, pp. A34-A35, Current Communist Goals, Extension of Remarks of Hon. A. S. Herlong, Jr. of Florida in the House of Representatives, Thursday, January 10, 1963 (emphasis added).

    [8]           Quoted from the Congressional Record – Appendix, pp. A34-A35, Current Communist Goals, Extension of Remarks of Hon. A. S. Herlong, Jr. of Florida in the House of Representatives, Thursday, January 10, 1963.

    [10]         https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/ (emphasis added).

    [11]         Quoted from the eye witness account of her sister, Mallory Millett, recounted here: https://mallorymillett.com/?p=37

     

    [12]         Quoted from https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/ accessed on June 4, 2020.  

     

    Beginning in about June 2020, conservatives noticed the BLM credo and its overt Marxism.  They began quoting it to warn the public about the encroaching Marxism throughout western nations.  Sometime, in approximately September 2020, BLM removed this credo and substituted a more generic one in its place.  Here is an archive copy of BLM’s Marxist credo we quote, here:  https://web.archive.org/web/20200917194804/https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

     

    [13]         Le socialisme intégral, Benoît Malon, (emphasis added), a translation of this from the original French, is found here: https://www.traditioninaction.org/Cultural/B009cpMen.htm

    [15]         See, e.g., the section called “A Wife, A Helpmate”, which is part of “Our Deportment,” a secular code of manners for refined society by John H. Young A.M., published in 1881, and found here: https://www.theepochtimes.com/gender-roles-of-husband-and-wife-in-the-home-based-on-1880s-gentlemans-etiquette-manual_4573890.html

    [16]         Genesis, 2:23:  “And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.”

    [17]         Genesis, 2:22: “And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam.”

    [18]         Genesis, 3:20: “And Adam called the name of his wife Eve: because she was the mother of all the living.”

    [19]         1 Timothy: 14: “Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the

    transgression.”

     

     

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

    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 can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/02/24/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx/

    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/   This second part begins at the discussion of the third point of Marx’s implementation of Satan’s eight-point program.  This third point is entitled: “Like Satan, Marx fundamentally sought to divide people and set one group in opposition to another.”

    As shown in the first two parts of this article, Satan’s and Marx’s 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.

    Now we begin examining how the modern feminist movement follows the same eight-point program promoted by Satan and Marx.


    Part 3:

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

    (Continuing where we left off last month)

    We now begin to study feminism and (more recent) feminist leaders to see how they follow this same satanic and Marxist program.  It makes sense that feminism follows this same program because feminism is an important tool of Satan and Marx. 

    Rosemary Ruether, a modern feminist leader, showed this Marxist connection in 1977, during her keynote address to Minnesota’s International Women’s Year meeting, when she identified feminist theology as a species of [Marxist] liberation theology.[1]

    Mrs. Donna Steichen, the author of Ungodly Rage, is a Catholic journalist who attended many “women’s empowerment” conferences in many locations, investigating the feminist movement.  Here is part of her biography from a May 31, 2011, interview:

    In the 1970s, Steichen began working as a Catholic journalist, writing for her diocesan newspaper.  She was also active in the pro-life movement, the Catholic League and religious education.

    Long an avid reader of Catholic publications, in the 1980s Steichen became increasingly concerned about the effect of feminism on American Catholicism.[2]

    Mrs. Steichen studied religious feminism because, as she explained, “it is the ultimate manifestation” of feminism.[3]  She explained further how she came to write her book, Ungodly Rage:

    This book is a report on the subterranean phenomena of religious feminism as observed over more than a dozen years. …[4]

    1.   Like Satan and Marx, Modern Feminists and Feminist Principles are Anti-God.

    Mrs. Steichen explains feminism’s anti-God agenda:

    Feminism is about overthrowing the structure of the family and society.  It rose out of the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels [authors of The Communist Manifesto].  They saw that the family was at odds with their vision of society.  Owning the factories is not enough; you can’t change society unless you get rid of the family.  When you attack the family, you attack society itself, including its institutions, authority, and traditions, as well as the Ten Commandments and God.

    Religious feminists, and even secular feminists, want to overthrow God.  The religious feminists have set about replacing the Trinitarian God with a mishmash of New Age spirituality[5], paganism, psychology, and anything that is not structured, that is not traditional, that is not Christianity.[6]

    Like Satan and Marx, feminism and its leaders are anti-God.  This is because God is a Father and the model of all fathers.  St. Paul emphasizes this fact here:

    For this cause, I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named.

    Ephesians, 3:14-15.

    Feminism and feminists are anti-God because they are anti-patriarchy, which is the order that God created.

    Mrs. Steichen explains that “the ultimate feminist objective is the obliteration of Christianity.”[7]  She explains that even the leaders of the secular feminist movement know that feminism is, at bottom, a revolution against traditional religion.  Mrs. Steichen quotes secular feminist leader, Gloria Steinem, as saying, “Women-Church [which is a feminist movement] is the women’s movement.”[8]

    Secular feminist leader, Betty Friedan, bluntly stated: “the Church is the enemy”.[9]

    But 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?[10]

    According to Starhawk, who is a feminist leader and a practicing witch:

    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.[11]

    Religious feminist leader, Mary Daly, a former Catholic nun, wrote many influential feminist books, in which she mocked the Blessed Trinity, Our Lord, Holy Communion, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and was anti-God in many other ways.  Here is one way she mocked the Most Blessed Trinity:

    I see myself as a pirate, plundering and smuggling back to women that which has been stolen from us.  But it hasn’t simply been stolen; it’s been stolen and reversed.  For example, the christian [sic] trinity [sic] is the triple goddess reversed.  The trinity [sic] is aptly described as a closed triangle.[12]

    Daly wrote that feminism is Antichrist.  Here are her words:

    Does this mean, then, that the women’s movement points to, seeks, or in some way constitutes a rival to “the Christ”?  …  Michelet [a different feminist author] wrote that the priest has seen in the witch “an enemy, a menacing rival.”  In its depth, because it contains a dynamic that drives beyond Christolatry, the women’s movement does point to, seek, and constitute the primordial, always present, and future Antichrist.[13]

    Mrs. Steichen also quotes secular feminist leader, Betty Friedan, about the feminist agenda being, at bottom, anti-God:

    When asked what the feminist movement could hope to accomplish in the future, Betty Friedan told reporters, “I can’t tell you that now.  You wouldn’t believe it anyway.  It’s theological.”[14]

    This “theological” is not God’s religion; it is Satan’s.  As Mrs. Steichen explains, “Feminism appears to be the bait, moral disintegration the hook and the occult the dark and treacherous sea into which the deluded are towed.”[15]

    “Women’s empowerment” conferences frequently feature occult rituals.  Here is one eyewitness account:

    By Sunday morning, the Mankato conference crowd had declined to about three hundred.  While two other feminist services were held down a hallway, some 150 women gathered for the Wiccan rite described in the program as combining “both ancient matriarchal concepts and contemporary feminist issues”.  The large room was unfurnished except for a table altar, decorated with corn and gourds, four unlighted candles, a conch shell and a small brass cauldron.  Priestesses Patti Lather and Antiga said the service would be conducted in the “Dianic Wiccan tradition”.  The women formed a loose circle and followed Antiga and Lather in a vigorous opening chant:

    We are strong and loving women;

    We will do what must be done,

    Changing, feeling, loving, growing,

    We will do what must be done.

    It was repeated, in accelerating tempo, half a dozen times.  Next came a song in a quick folk-blues rhythm. The women sang eagerly, clapping in time, some singing the harmony:

    Woman am I, Spirit am I,

    I am the infinite within my soul;

    I have no beginning and I have no end,

    All this I am.[16]

    Antiga called the large circle together again with a blast from her conch shell.  The women stood with hands linked, eyes closed, while she led them in the hypnotic “centering meditation”, a “Tree of Life ritual largely taken from Starhawk’s Dreaming the Dark and almost identical to the one used earlier in Joan Keller-Marcsh’s workshop.[17]


    Conclusion

    It is clear that feminism is anti-God.  The religious feminists show this more often and more plainly than the secular feminists.  But the secular feminists show they are anti-God also.  Thus, we see that the feminist leaders and feminist principles follow the first point of Satan’s and Marx’s program.

    Next month, we will examine how the feminist leaders and feminist principles follow the second point of Satan’s and Marx’s program by promoting disobedience and opposition to the authority ordained by God.

    To be continued next month …



    [1]           Ungodly Rage, The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism, By Mrs. Donna Steichen, Ignatius Press, San Francisco ©1991, page 17.

     

    [2]           May 31, 2011 interview found here: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2011/05/31/incalculable-damage/

     

    [3]           Ungodly Rage, The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism, By Mrs. Donna Steichen, Ignatius Press, San Francisco ©1991, page 237.

    [4]           Quoted from the May 31, 2011 interview found here:

    https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2011/05/31/incalculable-damage/ (bracketed words in the original).

     

    [5]           See, further information in Ungodly Rage, The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism, By Mrs. Donna Steichen, Ignatius Press, San Francisco ©1991, page 122.


    [6]           Quoted from the May 31, 2011 interview found here:

    https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2011/05/31/incalculable-damage/ (bracketed words in the original).

     

    [7]           Ungodly Rage, page 79.

     

    [8]           Ungodly Rage, page 117-118 (emphasis in the original).

     

    [9]           Mary Daly, Beyond God the Father, p.155, as quoted in: http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2163 (2010).

    [10]         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

    [11]         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]         Daly, Beyond God the Father, (Beacon Press, 1973) p.96, as quoted in http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2163 (emphasis added; bracketed words added).

    [14]         Ungodly Rage, page 20.

     

    [15]         Ungodly Rage, page 27.

    [16]         Ungodly Rage, page 35.

     

    [17]         Ungodly Rage, page 35.

     

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

    Catholic Candle note:

    Last Month, 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 and can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/02/24/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx/

    As shown in part one of this article, Satan’s 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.

    In part one of this article (published last month), we examined Satan’s promotion of his eight-point program.  Then we began to examine Marx’s program and saw it was the same as Satan’s program in the first two elements (viz., Satan’s program is anti-God and promotes disobedience).  That is where last month’s article ended.

    Below, in part two, we continue examining the rest of Marx’s program to see how, in points 3-8, it is the same program as Satan’s program.  Below, we begin where we left off in part one of this series, with Marx’s application of point three of Satan’s eight-point program.  After finishing all eight points of Marx’s adoption of Satan’s program, we will finish (in the final several installments of this article) by examining how the modern feminist movement follows the same eight-point program promoted by Satan and Marx.

    (Continuing where we left off last month)

    3.   Like Satan, Marx fundamentally sought to divide people and set one group in opposition to another.

    Because Marx was fundamentally revolutionary, he sought to divide nations, peoples, groups, and classes because he knew – as Satan also knows – that “if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.”  St. Mark’s Gospel, 3:24.  Thus, Marx, like Satan, sought division in order to weaken, destroy, and foment rebellion.

    Here is one way Marx explained his seeking to set the worker class against the owner class:

    The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.[1]

    Seeing Satan’s and Marx’s strategy of dividing people into opposing groups, we would expect that Satan and Marx would use this same strategy to divide women from men.  As we shall see, this is exactly what Satan and Marx do, using the feminist movement.

    Pope Pius XI warned that the “preachers of Communism are proficient in exploiting racial antagonisms, political divisions, and oppositions.”[2]  In a different place, Pope Pius XI warns that “Communism teaches and seeks … unrelenting class warfare”.[3] 

    Similarly, the communists are proficient in exploiting any antagonisms between the sexes.

    This Marxist teaching (and their goal of dividing people) are exactly the opposite of what good men would do.  Pope Pius XI teaches the truth that all good men know, viz., that we should strive to lessen all conflict between the races, classes and sexes.  We should produce harmony and cooperation between all people.  This goal is directly opposed to the communist goal.[4]

    Pope Pius XI adds in another place, that not only do communists seek to increase hostility between the classes of society, but they attack and seek to annihilate anyone who seeks harmony between classes.[5]

    4.   Like Satan, Marx promoted discontent, envy, and discord.

    Marx sought to stir up dissatisfaction with everything, by promoting (as he put it) a “ruthless criticism of all that exists”.[6]  His aim was criticism and discontent.  Marx did not seek the truth.

    As Marx sought to mobilize workers to battle against the rich, he declared: “Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.”[7]  Marx told the workers that they are mistreated and enslaved.  He told them that they must fight and rebel. 

    Among the other groups into which Marxists sow discontent, are women.  The Marxists continually tell women they are mistreated and that the solution is so-called “women’s liberation”.  In other words, Marxists strive to enlist women into their revolution.

    Marx told workers that they are enslaved and he told women that, too.  Here is one way that the Marxists phrase their message to women:

    Additional forms of oppression women experience are attacks on their reproductive rights and domestic and sexual harassment and violence. These forms of oppression are valid reasons for immigrant women to request amnesty.  The extreme right has launched an ideological attack on women’s roles in society and the family.  The extreme right is trying to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term and to revert back to a submissive role.[8]

    In the Marxist call to discontent, Fredrick Engels (Marx’s close associate) called the “rise” of the nuclear family (i.e., father, mother and children) “the world historic defeat of the female sex.”[9]

    In this way, we see that the Marxists seek to make women discontented.  Engels and other Marxists tell women that they have been defeated by the existence of the family.  We will see more examples of this sowing of discontent during our subsequent treatment of modern feminist leaders. 

    5.   Like Satan, Marx promoted hatred.

    Marx wanted to be well-known for something and, since (as he explained) he could not be the Creator, he chose to be a destroyer and to “destroy worlds”.[10]

    Love is contrary to hatred.  A person seeks union with what he loves and he seeks separation from, or destruction of, what he hates.[11]  Marx was full of hate and sought to “destroy worlds”.

    Further, Marx hated the rich and sought to overthrow them.[12]  Marx despised various ethnic groups.[13]

    Marx not only hated and sought the destruction of those groups he opposed, but he also urged others to hate and destroy those groups, too.[14]  Like Satan’s program, Marx’s teaching and methods were built on hatred.[15]

    Pope Pius XI warned that Marxism fundamentally involves “violent hate and destruction”.[16]

    Thus, because feminism is (in a way), founded by Satan and is inextricably tied to Marxism, we would expect that Satan and Marx would indelibly imprint their character on the feminist movement and that we would see feminism destroy love and harmony in the home and in society.  We would expect that feminism would foster hatred, disunity, and disharmony.  As we will see, that is exactly what feminism does.

    Of course, this does not mean that every feminist hates her husband (if she is even married, which is increasingly less likely, thanks in large part to feminism).  Humans are inconsistent and take incoherent positions which contradict other principles they also hold.  In this way, many women (and men) adopt evil principles to a “moderate” extent, because of pressure, emotion, the desire to be “socially acceptable”, or due to their failure to think clearly and to examine the principles on which a particular position is based.

    In our modern society, there are motivations to adopt feminism, as well as to adopt a “moderate” version of many other errors.  For example, many Catholics support the principle of religious liberty for some false religions but not for others, e.g., for the public religious display of a “respectable” group like the Lutherans or even the Mormons, but not a disfavored group such as the Satanists.  (However, with the continued deterioration of our society, even the Satanists are becoming more “respectable” or mainstream.)[17]  This human tendency to compromise with error – to “go along to get along” – is common but is evil, unreasonable, and incoherent. 

    6.   Like Satan, Marx was result-oriented and unprincipled because Marx neither acted according to immutable principles nor encouraged his followers to do so.

    Marx declared that he was not bound by objective, eternal morality.  Marx did not simply claim to establish new principles of morality but declared that he abolished all morality.  Here is one way Marx explained his teaching:

    “There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society.  But Communism abolishes eternal truths,[18] it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”[19]

    Instead of moral principles, Marx taught that anything that advanced the class struggle was good and anything that impeded the class struggle was bad.[20]

    Recognizing that Satan and Marx act in an unprincipled manner and encourage others to do so likewise, we would expect that the feminist leaders would act and teach this way, too, since they are disciples of Satan and Marx.  As we will see, this is what they do and teach.

    7.   Like Satan, Marx used lies and promoted lies and deception.

    Just as Satan is the Father of Lies and he lies whenever expedient, Marx also rejected the moral principle that lying is wrong and he lied to achieve his goals.  Marx declared that “Communism abolishes eternal truths”.[21]

    Marx not only approved of lying to achieve his political goals, but he also lied in his family life.  For example, Marx had a deceitful affair with the family’s housekeeper and lied about it.[22]  To cover up his infidelity, Marx persuaded Engels (co-author of the Communist Manifesto) and others to lie and to help him cover up the affair.  Id.

    With Marx (and Satan) lying and teaching that lies are acceptable, since there are (supposedly) no eternal truths, we would expect that their disciples, the feminist leaders, would also be liars.  As we will see, feminist leaders do teach and act this way.

     

    8.   Like Satan, Marx was anti-Natural Law.

    With Marx in league with Satan and seeking to “destroy worlds” and to defy God (see the earlier quotes), Marx also sought to destroy the Natural Law,[23] which is a key aspect of God’s creation.  For example:

     

    v  Following Satan, Marx sought to abolish marriage[24] and the family[25] even though those institutions are necessary for the human race and are part of the Natural Law[26].  Thus, it is no surprise that Satan and Marx trivialize the crucial role of women – as being the necessary heart of the home and the center of raising young children to be saints and good citizens.  Nor is it a surprise that Satan and Marx promote taking women out of their loving role in the home (and with their children) and “outsourcing” this work to strangers as a mere job, e.g., at a day care center.[27]

    v  Marx spread the lie of an unnatural equality between men and women.[28]  This evil (supposed) equality destroys women’s own unique and essential role, thereby destroying the family.  For when women are simply “men” with the same role, state in life, and careers as men, then they have no separate, complementary[29] role.  (Equal things are not complementary, since “complementary” roles involve diverse subjects in which they are precisely not equal, but where one makes up for the deficiency of the other.)

    Because Satan and Marx are key sources of feminism, we would expect that modern feminist leaders would promote the idea that women have no role of their own and that their place is to compete with men and as much as possible act like a man and live a man’s life.  For example, the Marxists urge women to “fight for equality on the job”.[30] As we will see, that is exactly what the modern feminist leaders teach.

    v  Following Satan, Marx sought to abolish virtue and morality[31], even though they are part of the Natural Law.  Because modern feminist leaders are disciples of Satan and Marx, we would expect these leaders to also promote vice and immorality.  As we shall see, that is exactly how these feminist leaders act.

     

    v  Marx sought to abolish countries, patriotism, and love of one’s own country even though patriotism is a virtue and is part of the Natural Law.[32]  Marx declared that “The working men have no country.[33]

     

    Abolishing patriotism fits with being anti-family, since a properly constituted country has hierarchy, authority, mutual care, and bonds of citizens, with the leaders being like the fathers of their countries.  Because modern feminist leaders are disciples of Marx, we would expect that they would follow Marx in being anti-patriotic.  As we will see, this is how they are.


    Before examining the teachings of modern feminist leaders, let us recall the predictions of Our Lady of Fatima regarding Marxist Russia spreading her errors.

    Up to this point, we have seen that Marx has the same program as Satan and they both push feminism.  We will next examine modern feminism, which is a tool of Satan and Marx.  However, before we begin this examination, let us recall what we know of the message of Our Lady of Fatima.  

    We know that Marxist Russia is currently spreading its errors, since Russia has not been consecrated to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart, as God commanded.  In 1917, Our Lady of Fatima warned that, when she came in the future (viz., in 1929) to ask for this consecration, if the pope delayed the consecration, his delay would cause great harm throughout the world.  Here are Our Lady’s words:

    I shall come [viz., in 1929] to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, by the Holy Father and all the bishops of the world.  If my request is heeded, Russia will be converted and there will be peace.  If not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, provoking wars and persecution against the Church.[34]

    We know that, since Our Lady’s request, no pope has consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart.  Thus, before even looking at our present situation, we would know that Russia is indeed spreading its errors.

    When we look around us, we see powerful proof that Russia is spreading its Marxist errors everywhere.  At present, we are focusing on the Marxists’ promoting one of those main errors: feminism.

    Below, we will briefly examine well-known modern feminists who also were affiliated with Marxism or the Communist Party.


    Modern feminist leaders with Marxist connections

    There is an extremely close connection between Marxism and feminism.  Here, for example, is one way that one of the communist leaders expressed that connection; Inessa Armand, the first leader of the Women’s Department of the 1917 Russian Revolution, made the following observation:

    If women’s liberation is unthinkable without communism, then communism is unthinkable without women’s liberation.[35]

    Inessa Armand’s remark agrees with the Catholic Church’s consistent teaching about the close connection between Marxism/Communism and feminism.  Here is one way Pope Pius XI warned about the Communists promotion of feminism:

     

    Communism is particularly characterized by the rejection of any link that binds woman to the family and the home, and her emancipation is proclaimed as a basic principle.  She is withdrawn from the family and the care of her children, to be thrust instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as man.  The care of home and children then devolves upon the collectivity.

     

    Divini RedemptorisOn Atheistic Communism, Pope Pius XI, §11.


    Betty Friedan

    Betty Friedan, (maiden name, Betty Goldstein), was a Stalinist Marxist, often described as “America’s premier feminist”.[36]  She wrote a very influential book called The Feminist Mystique, which launched the modern women’s movement.[37]   She was one of the national leaders of the feminist movement and one of the founding members of the feminist organization called the National Women’s Political Caucus.[38]  She was a political activist and professional propagandist for the Communists for a quarter of a century before the publication of her book.[39]


    Bella Abzug

    Bella Abzug was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from New York City from 1970 to 1976.  She had a long history of pro-communist activities.[40]  Even in college she was notable for opposing America’s entry into World War II during the Hitler-Stalin pact, when Communists in the U.S. were denouncing the war against Hitler.  As soon as Hitler invaded the Soviet Union and the Communist Party USA made an abrupt shift in policy to support the war, Bella Abzug, also flip-flopped to support it.[41]

    She was one of the national leaders of the feminist movement and one of the founding members of the feminist organization called the National Women’s Political Caucus.[42]


    Jane Fonda

    She is a self-described feminist and “women’s rights activist”.[43]  During the Vietnam War, she traveled to Hanoi and made radio broadcasts on behalf of the communists, inciting American troops to defect from the U.S. military.[44]  She was photographed sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun on a 1972 visit to Hanoi, during which she gained the nickname "Hanoi Jane".[45]


    Shirley Chisholm

    Shirley Chisholm was the first black woman to enter Congress.  She had a long history of Communist Party USA front affiliation.[46]  She was one of the national leaders of the feminist movement and one of the founding members of the feminist organization called the National Women’s Political Caucus.[47]

    There are so many other prominent feminist leaders who support Communist and Marxist causes.  But these suffice for now to get a glimpse into the Marxist-feminist connection.  In the next part of this article, we will examine how modern feminist leaders support the same Eight-point program as Satan and Marx.

    Part III: to be continued next month



    [1]           Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.

    [2]           Divini RedemptorisOn Atheistic Communism, by Pope Pius XI, 1937, paragraph 15.  Note, in the quote given here, we remove the word “also” before the word “proficient”, because the other exploitations to which the pope refers are not part of the quote we give here.

    [3]           Here is the longer quote from the pope:

    One section of Socialism has undergone almost the same change that the capitalistic economic system, as We have explained above, has undergone.  It has sunk into Communism.  Communism teaches and seeks two objectives: unrelenting class warfare and absolute extermination of private ownership.

    Quadragesimo Anno, by Pope Pius XI, 1931, paragraph 112.

    [4]           Here is one way that Pope Pius XI teaches this truth:

    First and foremost, the State and every good citizen ought to look to and strive toward this end: that the conflict between the hostile classes be abolished and harmonious cooperation of the Industries and Professions be encouraged and promoted.

    Quadragesimo Anno, by Pope Pius XI, 1931, paragraph 81.

    Obviously, what Pope Pius XI teaches about other classes in society applies to the two sexes. 

    [5]           Here is the pope’s longer teaching:

    Insisting on the dialectical aspect of their materialism, the Communists claim that the conflict which carries the world towards its final synthesis can be accelerated by man.  Hence, they endeavor to sharpen the antagonisms which arise between the various classes of society.  Thus, the class struggle with its consequent violent hate and destruction takes on the aspects of a crusade for the progress of humanity.  On the other hand, all other forces whatever, as long as they resist such systematic violence, must be annihilated as hostile to the human race.

    Divini RedemptorisOn Atheistic Communism, by Pope Pius XI, 1937, paragraph 9 (emphasis added).

    [6]           Here is the longer quote from Marx:

    Now philosophy has become mundane, and the most striking proof of this is that philosophical consciousness itself has been drawn into the torment of the struggle, not only externally but also internally.  But, if constructing the future and settling everything for all times are not our affair, it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be.

    Letter of Marx to Arnold Ruge, Kreuznach, September 1843, found here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09.htm

    [7]           Quote from Karl Marx which is found here: https://www.azquotes.com/author/9564-Karl_Marx?p=2  The end of the Communist Manifesto contains these words: “Working Men of All Countries, Unite!”  In an editor’s footnote, the web site, Marxist.org, explains that the more popularized version of the motto is the longer one quoted in the body of this article.

    [8]           Quoted from Program of the Communist Party USA, under the heading: Problems of Inequality, Exploitation, and Oppression, found here: https://www.cpusa.org/party_info/party-program/

    [10]         Here is a poem written by Marx, in which he expresses this desire and his rage:

    I am caught in endless strife,
    Endless ferment
    , endless dream;
    I cannot conform to life,
    Will not travel with the stream.

    Heaven I would comprehend,
    I would draw the world to me;
    Loving, hating, I intend
    That my star shine brilliantly
    . […]

    Worlds I would destroy forever,
    Since I can create no world
    ,
    Since my call they notice never,
    Coursing dumb in magic whirl. […]

    So the spirits go their way
    Till they are consumed outright,
    Till their lords and masters they
    Totally annihilate.  

    Poem by Marx, from pp. 525–26 of Volume one of Marx’s collected works, as quoted here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/a-little-known-side-of-karl-marx-his-poetry-and-his-diabolism

    [11]         Summa, Ia IIae, Q.29, a.2, ad 2.

    [12]         Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.

    [14]         Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.

    [15]         Karl Marx called himself “the greatest hater of the so-called positive.”  https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/56204 (emphasis added).

    Lenin, who was a disciple of Marx, declared: “We must teach our children to hateHatred is the basis of Communism.”.  Lenin admitted that hatred was “the basis of every socialist and Communist movement.”  Quoted from Lenin’s speech to the Soviet Commissars of Education and his tract, Left-Wing Communism, as quoted here: https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/56204

    [16]         Here is the pope’s longer teaching:

    Insisting on the dialectical aspect of their materialism, the Communists claim that the conflict which carries the world towards its final synthesis can be accelerated by man.  Hence, they endeavor to sharpen the antagonisms which arise between the various classes of society.  Thus, the class struggle with its consequent violent hate and destruction takes on the aspects of a crusade for the progress of humanity.  On the other hand, all other forces whatever, as long as they resist such systematic violence, must be annihilated as hostile to the human race.

    Divini RedemptorisOn Atheistic Communism, by Pope Pius XI, 1937, paragraph 9.

    [17]         For example, here is a news report about the Satanists’ display in the Illinois State Capitol: https://nypost.com/2021/12/19/satanic-temples-holiday-display-coming-back-to-illinois-capitol-rotunda/

    [18]         Of course, on one level, Marx is contradicting himself because he is setting down the “eternal truth” that he is abolishing all eternal truths. 

     

    Likewise, it is inconsistent for him to abolish “all morality” (as he says he does) yet he sets down the principle that anything is good (i.e., moral) which advances the revolution and anything is bad (i.e., immoral) which impedes the revolution.

    [19]         Communist Manifesto, Chapter II (emphasis added).

    [20]         Vladimir Lenin, one of the best know students of Marxist thought, explained this moral expediency this way, in a speech he gave to the Young Communist League:

    But is there such a thing as Communist ethics? Is there such a thing as Communist morality?  Of course, there is. It is often suggested that we have no ethics of our own; very often the bourgeoisie accuse us Communists of rejecting all morality.  This is a method of confusing the issue, of throwing dust in the eyes of the workers and peasants.

    In what sense do we reject ethics, reject morality?

    In the sense given to it by the bourgeoisie, who based ethics on God’s commandments.  On this point we, of course, say that we do not believe in God, and that we know perfectly well that the clergy, the landowners and the bourgeoisie invoked the name of God so as to further their own interests as exploiters.  Or, instead of basing ethics on the commandments of morality, on the commandments of God, they based it on idealist or semi-idealist phrases, which always amounted to something very similar to God’s commandments.

    We reject any morality based on extra-human and extra-class concepts. We say that this is deception, dupery, stultification of the workers and peasants in the interests of the landowners and capitalists.

    We say that our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the proletariat’s class struggle.  Our morality stems from the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat.

    Vladimir Lenin’s Speech Delivered October 2, 1920, at the Third All-Russia Congress of The Russian Young Communist League, available at this link: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/oct/02.htm

    [21]         Communist Manifesto, Chapter II (emphasis added).

    [23]         The Natural Law is what we know we must do by the light of the natural reason God gave us.  One example of the Natural Law is that we must never tell a lie.  We naturally know this because we know that the purpose of speech is to convey the truth and so we naturally know that telling a lie is abusing the purpose of speech. 

    Here is how St. Thomas explains what the Natural Law is:

    [L]aw, being a rule and measure, can be in a person in two ways: in one way, as in him that rules and measures; in another way, as in that which is ruled and measured, since a thing is ruled and measured, in so far as it partakes of the rule or measure.  Wherefore, since all things subject to Divine providence are ruled and measured by the eternal law, as was stated above [in Summa, Ia IIae, Q.91, a.1]; it is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends.  Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident both for itself and for others.  Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law.  Hence the Psalmist after saying (Psalm 4:6): "Offer up the sacrifice of justice," as though someone asked what the works of justice are, adds: "Many say, Who showeth us good things?" in answer to which question he says: "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us": thus implying that the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature’s participation of the eternal law.

    Summa, Ia IIae, Q.91, a.2, respondeo.

    [24]         Marx’s closest collaborator, Fredrick Engels, wrote that “the first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and … this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unity of society.”  Quoted from Fredrick Engels, The Origin of Family Private Property and the State, Ch. 2, section 4, available at Marxist.org/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm (emphasis added).

    [25]         Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.

    [26]         Summa Supp., Q.41, a.1.

    [27]         Luring mothers to leave their homes and children to join the workforce of businesses is one of the chief tools of Communism and is one of the main ways Russia has spread its errors.  Here is how Pope Pius XI explained this truth:

    Communism is particularly characterized by the rejection of any link that binds woman to the family and the home, and her emancipation is proclaimed as a basic principle.  She is withdrawn from the family and the care of her children, to be thrust instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as man.  The care of home and children then devolves upon the collectivity.

     

    Divini Redemptoris – On Atheistic Communism, Pope Pius XI, §11.

    [28]         Here is one way in which the Marxists phrase their claim of an equality – which is unnatural – between the sexes:

    Working-class men must realize that childcare, domestic work, and equal wages are not just women’s issues; they are issues that affect everyone. They have an important role to play in leading other men to combat gender discrimination and inequality. They should speak out when they see gender discrimination and advocate in a way that wins other men to the fight for gender equality. They should take an initiating role in combating all instances of sexism and male supremacy in the labor and people’s movements as well as in the family. Women need and deserve an equal place as elected officials, and in the ranks and in the leadership of the labor movement, the people’s mass democratic movements, and in the Communist Party.

    Quoted from Program of the Communist Party USA, subsection: Problems of Inequality, Exploitation, and Oppression, found here: https://www.cpusa.org/party_info/party-program/

    Pius XI condemns married women working outside the home, in the following words:

    Neither this emancipation of the woman is real, nor is it the reasonable and worthy liberty convenient to the Christian and noble mission of the woman and wife.  It is the corruption of the feminine nature and maternal dignity, as well as the perversion of all the family, since the husband lacks his wife, the children their mother, and the entire family her vigilant guard.

     

    On the contrary, this false liberty and unnatural equality with man is harmful for the woman herself, because at the moment that she steps down from the royal domestic throne to which she was raised by the Gospel, quickly she will fall into the ancient slavery of Paganism, becoming a mere instrument of man.

     

    Pope Pius XI, Casti connubii, #75 (emphasis added).

    [29]         It is plain that God made the both sexes necessary and complementary but for different work, unlike the lies promoted by Satan, Marx, and the feminists that the sexes are equal and have, basically, the same work and role. 

     

    Here is how Pope Pius XI presented this important Catholic teaching that the sexes are different and complementary:

     

    [T]he two [sexes are] quite different in organism, in temperament, [and] in abilities ….  These [viz., men and women], in keeping with the wonderful designs of the Creator, are destined to complement each other in the family and in society, precisely because of their differences ….

     

    Divini Illius Magistri, (On Christian Education), Pope Pius XI, §68 (emphasis added; bracketed words added for clarity).

     

    [30]         Here is the larger quote from the Marxists:

    Every movement for change and progress challenges the power of the corporations. Workers confront corporate power daily in their workplace and in every contract negotiation. African Americans, Mexican Americans and other Latinos/Latinas, Native Americans, Asian Americans, the LGBTQ community, and women all confront corporate power when they fight for equality on the job and in their communities. Youth confront corporate power when they fight for free quality education and relief from the student debt crisis. Environmental organizations confront corporate power when they try to stop global warming, pollution, the dumping of industrial waste, or the ravaging of the remaining wilderness areas for profit.

    Quoted from the Program of the Communist Party USA, subsection entitled: Problems of Inequality, Exploitation, and Oppression, found at this link: https://www.cpusa.org/party_info/party-program/

    [31]         Marx’s collaborator, Friedrich Engels, stated that he ultimately hoped for widespread unconstrained impurity with the aim of dissolving traditional marriage and ultimately eliminating the family institution.  Friedrich Engels, Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, trans. Alick West, (1884), chap. 2, part 4, accessed via Marxists Internet Archive on April 17, 2020, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm.

    In seeking to destroy countries, Vladimir Lenin knew the importance of destroying the family.  He declared: “Destroy the family, you destroy the country.”  Quoted here: quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/Vladimir+Ilyich+lenin

    [32]         Summa, IIa IIae, Q.101, a.1.

    [33]         Here is one way Marx declared his position:

    The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.  The working men have no country.

    Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.

    [34]         This is a portion of Our Lady’s message during the Third Apparition of Fatima, July 13, 1917 (emphasis added; bracketed words added to clarify the timeline), quoted from The Whole Truth About Fatima, Frére Michel de la Sainte Trinité, translator John Collorafi, vol. II, Immaculate Heart Publications, Buffalo, NY, © 1989 for English translation, pp.281-282.

    [36]         Betty Friedan’s secret Communist past, by David Horowitz, Salon Magazine, January 18, 1999, found here: https://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/friedan-per-horowitz.html

    [37]         Betty Friedan’s secret Communist past, by David Horowitz, Salon Magazine, January 18, 1999, found here: https://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/friedan-per-horowitz.html

    [39]         Betty Friedan’s secret Communist past, by David Horowitz, Salon Magazine, January 18, 1999, found here: https://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/friedan-per-horowitz.html

    [44]         Betty Friedan’s secret Communist past, by David Horowitz, Salon Magazine, January 18, 1999, found here: https://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/friedan-per-horowitz.html

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

    Catholic Candle note: In past issues, Catholic Candle has examined some of the evils of feminism.  In those articles, we saw how feminism is anarchy in the family.[1]  We saw how feminism contrasts to the magnificent work of a wife and mother that is the vocation and great work for which God created women.[2]  We saw some first-hand accounts of the evils of “women’s empowerment” activities.[3]  Lastly, we saw the gentility and virtuous chivalry that men should show toward women.  Id

    In the article below, Catholic Candle begins a multi-part examination of how the feminists follow the same program as Satan and Marx.  Readers might remember how Catholic Candle previously examined how Black Lives Matter (“BLM”) and the so-called “racial justice” movement also follow the program of Satan and Marx.[4]  Although the feminists and BLM both follow this same program, Satan and the leaders of these modern movements apply the principles of this program a little differently, in different circumstances, in order to appeal to different groups.

     

    The modern feminist movement has its origin in Satan, especially as Karl Marx interprets and applies Satan’s program.  In this article we examine the connection between the programs of Satan, Marx, and modern feminism.

    We start by examining key features of Satan’s program.


    Satan’s Program

    What are the elements of Satan’s program (war) against God?  It:

     

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

    2.    Emphasizes 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.

    Below, we examine each of these elements of Satan’s program promoting feminism. 


    Examining the key features of Satan’s program to promote feminism

    1. Satan’s program is anti-God (and anti-worship of God).

    A key characteristic of Satan’s program is that it is explicitly against God and the worship of God.  We consider this aspect of Satan’s plan obvious. 

    As we see in society around us and also later in this article, the feminists are among Satan’s dupes and/or his willing servants.  Feminists are not all equally “hard core” in their adherence to (or devotion to) feminism.  The most extreme feminists are the most extremely anti-God. 

    Those who are “in between” – i.e., more or less feminist – are also correspondingly more or less anti-God.  But no feminists are devoted to and docile to God and to the life He wants them to live. 

    Because we are on earth to know, love, and serve God, we see that the satanic strategy of promoting feminism is directly opposed to our Final End and to the reason we are alive.  


    2.  Satan’s program emphasizes disobedience and opposition to the authority ordained by God.

    All authority comes from God.[5]  Satan’s first act was to declare disobedience against God.  Satan’s motto was – and continues to be – “Non serviam!”

    Satan is the original rebel and is the father of all rebels.  Satan’s purpose in his first encounter with a human, Eve, was to foment disobedience in her.  Satan tempted Eve to “go rogue” by disobeying God and by acting in this eternally-serious matter without seeking the guidance of her husband.

    As St. Paul teaches:

    Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.

    Ephesians, 6:12.

    In other words, St. Paul knew that Satan is the chief enemy of the human race.  St. Paul labored to fight Satan’s attacks on wives when Satan spurs them to disobey their husbands.  Here are the words of St. Paul’s “counterattack” against Satan:

    Wives, be subject to your husbands, as it behoveth in the Lord.

    Colossians, 3:18.  

    Also, St. Paul instructs wives in obedience in this way:

    As the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.

    Ephesians, 5:24.

    By marking St. Paul’s infallible teaching that wives must obey their husbands, we can see that Satan’s teaching is the opposite, promotes women’s disobedience and rebellion. 


    3. Satan’s program seeks to foment division between persons, classes, and groups.

    Satan knows that a house divided against itself will not standSt. Marks Gospel, 3:25.  Thus, Satan seeks division in order to weaken and to destroy human society, as he divided the angels of heaven by leading the rebellious angels in opposing God and His good angels.

    Satan’s first attack on the human race was not only to foment Eve’s disobedience (see above) but at the same time to destroy the social cohesiveness of the human race. 

    Satan is the founder of feminism.  He tempted Eve to reject the order God created, which included her submission to Adam, her husband.  Eve’s disobedience unmoored her from the benefit she would have received from her husband, by his directing her in avoiding sin.  In this way, by Satan being a cause of Eve committing the first human sin, he succeeded in his attempt to get her to reject both the natural and the supernatural order.

    Satan attacked Eve first and used her subsequently to conquer Adam.  Without Eve as his tool, Satan would not have succeeded (or at least not as easily) in obtaining victory over Adam and the fall of the whole human race through the fall of its head. 

    After Satan’s first victory over the human race, Satan continues to use the same successful strategy (among others) of attacking all women in order to thereby prevail against men too.  We see this in countless ways, e.g., by getting women to dress immodestly, Satan achieves their downfall and also defeats the men, bringing more people to hell by sins of impurity than by any other sin (as Our Lady declared at Fatima).

    Satan seeks to destroy the natural and supernatural order God created for the human race including a wife being united with her husband and being taught and directed by him.  To counter these satanic attacks upon women, we see St. Paul warn his flock using these words:

    Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith.  But if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home.  For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.

    1 Corinthians, 14:34-35.

    Here we see Satan’s program through seeing the opposite program of St. Paul.  In fomenting division in the human race, Satan especially seeks to divide those who should be most united: viz., spouses united in the bond of holy matrimony.  Division between a man and his wife is division among those whom God intended to be most united in a lifelong best-friendship. 

    Seeking this division between spouses, Satan especially promotes divorce.  Our Lord teaches against Satan’s program of division in these words:

    [Spouses] are not two, but one flesh.  What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

    St. Matthew’s Gospel, 19:6.

    Similarly, St. Paul fought Satan’s demonic program of divorce in these words:

    For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh.

    Ephesians, 5:31.

    4. Satan promotes discontent, envy, and discord.

    God promotes contentment and harmony.[6]  He teaches us to bear our crosses joyfully out of love for Him.  Satan is the opposite: he promotes discontent wherever he can.[7] 

    Satan stirred up discontent in Eve when he told Eve that God does not want her to eat of the forbidden tree because God does not want her to be like God.  Satan told her: “God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof … you shall be as Gods”.  Genesis, 3:5.

    In light of Satan’s program, we should expect that he would promote discontent, envy, and discord among his disciples, including the feminists.  So, for example, we should expect him to teach feminists to seek out reasons to be discontented and to ever be on the lookout for how they have been victimized and mistreated by men. 


    5. Satan promotes hatred.

    As St. John the Evangelist writes, God is love.[8]  Also, God has perfect unity.  He created mankind so that love would be a great source of unity with Him and among men. 

    God created mankind so that a woman would be a great source of unity in her home, flowing from her womanliness.  God calls a wife and mother to be the heart of her home and to fill her home with love.

    Satan strives to be the contrary of God, as hatred is the contrary of love.[9]  Satan is full of hatred and he promotes hatred through all of his works.  We should expect that Satan would promote hatred in feminists. 

    Seeing Satan’s program, we should expect that Satan would teach feminists to hate men.  As part of this hatred, we should expect him to ingrain feminism with unnatural vice – having sinful relationships with other women instead of natural and loving relationships with men (their husbands).  This feminist hatred of men is incompatible with fulfilling their God-given role as lifelong companions – each to her own husband of whom she is (supposed to be) the best friend according to God’s all-wise plan.[10]


    6. Satan’s program is result-oriented and appeals to self-interest.

    Satan does not act according to immutable principles of the Good and the Reasonable, nor does he encourage others to do so.  Satan’s program is founded upon selfishness.  He does whatever helps him gain an advantage and also encourages his followers to act likewise.

    Thus, we should expect that Satan would encourage unprincipled conduct in feminists, e.g., their attacking whoever is against them.  We would expect feminists not to be “pro” woman but “pro” whatever gives them an advantage.  For example, we would expect that, as Satan’s disciples, feminists would viciously attack good women who oppose feminism.

    Similarly, with feminists being Satan’s students, we should expect that they would not be “pro” woman and show this by cherishing innocent baby girls and protecting them from abortion and infanticide.  Nor should we expect that feminists would want to protect older women or sick women from euthanasia.  Such protection of the weak and innocent women and girls is incompatible with the program of unprincipled self-interest that they learned from their founder, Satan.

     

    7. Satan’s program is full of lies.  Lies are one of his main tools.

    Our Lord is the Truth and His disciples abide in the truth.  Satan is the father of lies.  Like any liar, Satan says whatever he thinks will be to his advantage, lying whenever it suits him.  Here are Our Lord’s words about Satan the liar:

    You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do.  He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him.  When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own:  for he is a liar, and the father thereof

    St. John ‘s Gospel, 8:44 (emphasis added).

    Satan wants to do whatever he can to disrupt God’s creation and Providential plan.  Thus, Satan wants to deceive parents into thinking that children should get their own way, doing whatever they want.  Satan would want to deceive parents into thinking that children should be allowed to be the “heads” of the family or that family decisions should be made by a democratic vote (one vote per family member).  This satanic lie would destroy the natural hierarchy in the family. 

     

    Satan would want to destroy the natural harmony God intended to exist between the sexes and deceive them into believing that a woman’s role and abilities are the same as man’s – whereas the truth is that God made women admirably suited for the role He gave them in life – just as He made men admirably suited for their own role.[11]  It is very anti-woman (as well as anti-Nature, anti-God, and anti-family) to lie to women, as Satan does, that their role is to simply try to act like men and be as much like a man as they can be. 

     

    The truth is that the roles and work of men and women are complementary, not a competition.  God intends the difference and inequality in the creatures He made, as part of the orderliness of creation.[12]  Here is one way that St. Thomas Aquinas teaches this complementariness between the sexes:

     

    [I]n other animals, there is communication between male and female only insofar as what was said above, namely only for the procreation of offspring; but in humans, male and female cohabitate not only for the sake of the procreation of children, but also on account of those things that are necessary for human life.  It is immediately apparent that human works that are necessary for life are divided between male and female; such that some are appropriate for the man, such as are to be done outside, and others for the wife, such as sewing and other things that are to be done at home.  Therefore, they are sufficient for one another as far as each brings in his own works for the common good.[13]

     

    In Satan’s promotion of lies, the bigger the lie is, the better he likes it.  Thus, we would expect that Satan would promote huge lies (wherever he can) such as “transgender” delusions, i.e., that a man becomes a woman when he “decides” he is one.[14]  Because Satan is a destroyer and an oppressor, he promotes such “transgender” delusions, in order to harm real women (as well as the deluded men), e.g., when those men intrude on women by using the women’s public bathrooms, etc

     

    Because feminists are Satan’s disciples, we would expect that the most radical feminists would promote these same “transgender” delusions (when they can), even when this would harm and disadvantage real women, e.g., by allowing these supposed “women” to stay overnight in women’s homeless shelters, allowing these “women” to win all of the trophies and records in women’s sports, etc.

     


    8. Satan’s program is against Nature and is anti-Natural Law.

    The Natural Law comes from God.  So, Satan has a particular desire to promote conduct against Nature and also the breaking of the Natural Law whenever possible.  Thus, Satan especially seeks people to commit sins which are unnatural.

    Satan promotes the murder of innocent babies.  Further, Satan would especially want women to promote abortion because it is more unnatural for them (as compared to men) because God put into women a special maternal instinct to help them in their roles as mothers.

    Thus, we would expect those who follow Satan’s program to promote abortion and infanticide.  Although those horrific crimes kill baby girls (as well as baby boys), we would expect that feminist leaders would not want to save those girls because the leader of these feminists is Satan, who wants those baby girls dead.

    Among the ways that Satan promotes contention and disharmony, he especially likes divorce not only because God made the relationship of spouses to be the most harmonious of all, but also because divorce is against the indissolubility of marriage even under the Natural Law[15] (as well, of course, as under the Catholic Church’s law).

    In Satan’s war against Nature and the Natural Law, he strongly promotes the vice of unnatural impurity.[16]  We would expect that feminist leaders – and a great many of their followers – would also be steeped in unnatural vice themselves as well as promoting this unnatural vice in others.  This is in keeping with their discipleship to Satan.

    Satan’s program opposes and blurs the natural distinctions between the sexes.  Here is one way that St. Paul labored to fight Satan’s attacks on Nature’s distinctions between the sexes:

    For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn.  But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head.  The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. 

    1 Corinthians, 11:6-9.

    God gave Moses the following law to combat Satan’s program of blurring Nature’s distinctions between the sexes, with this command:

    A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel: for he that doth these things is abominable before God.

    Deuteronomy, 22:5.

    God gave man the Natural Law “Increase and multiply and fill the earth”.  Genesis, 1:28. 

    Because raising her children well is the Great Work of a woman’s life[17], Sacred Scripture infallibly connects that work directly to a woman’s own salvation.  For example, here is one way St. Paul makes that connection:

     

    She [viz., a woman] shall be saved through childbearing; if she continues in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.”[18]

    Because motherhood is the Great Work of a woman’s life, St. Paul teaches that “younger [women] should marry, bear children, be mistresses of families”.[19]

    By contrast, Satan promotes whatever is against Nature and the Natural Law.  Thus, he promotes voluntary sterility in women.  He promotes women rejecting God’s role for them to be wives and mothers.  Instead, Satan promotes the evil feminist “ideal” of careers outside the home. 

    In these careers, Satan promotes the world, materialism, power and pride, in causing mothers to leave their God-given full-time homemaking roles to seek careers in the world.[20]


    Karl Marx’s Program

    Karl Marx adopted the key features of Satan’s program.  Let us examine how Marx promoted and applied Satan’s program.

    1.   Like Satan, Marx was fundamentally anti-God and anti-worship of God.

    Karl Marx was anti-God.  Marx made a pact with Satan, declaring “with Satan I have struck my deal.”[21]

    Not only did Marx choose Satan instead of God, but Marx also opposed and had contempt for religion.  He declared that:

      “Religion … is the opium of the people”.[22]

      “Communism abolishes … all religion.”[23]

      Religion is merely a class tool which the rich use to oppress other people.[24]

    Because Marx was so fundamentally anti-God and pro-Satan, it is fitting that Marx used (and Marxists continue to use) the clenched-fist salute – which is clenching their fists and lifting them high.  When a person displays a clenched fist at another person, it is an act indicating defiance.  Thus, Marxists raise their clenched fists heavenward.[25]

    Seeing Satan’s and Marx’s rejection of God and the worship of God, we would expect to find this same rejection of God and the worship of God among the feminist leaders because they are disciples of Satan and Marx.  Later in this article, we will see that expectation is fulfilled.


    2. Like Satan, Marx was fundamentally rebellious and anti-authority.

    Like Satan, Marx was fundamentally a rebel and disobedient.  Like Satan, Marx was filled with revolutionary defiance against God.  In one poetic way in which Marx phrased his own “non serviam” (in imitation of Satan), he declared that if God should bring down Marx’s own throne and bring Marx’s “walls and towers down”, he will nonetheless continue forever his defiant struggle against God, to raise them up again.[26]

    Marx strongly promoted not only rebellion against God but also against all civil governments and all authority.  Here is one way Marx declared support for every revolution.

    Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. …  The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims.  They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.[27]

    As we see, Satan and Marx foment rebellion wherever they can.  Satan – and Marx after him – are founders of the (so-called) “women’s liberation” movement because this is a type of rebellion against the order God created.  We see them enlist women to further their evil, revolutionary goals.  Thus, Satan enlisted Eve into his rebellion in order to more easily succeed in getting Adam to likewise rebel.  Genesis, 3:5.

    Similarly, Marx used Satan’s strategy of corrupting the women so they would rebel and thus Marx could more easily enlist the larger number of men to thereby also rebel.  Marx saw the importance of a “feminine ferment” (as he phrased it), i.e., women being in a state of agitation and disorder (as Webster’s Dictionary defines it)[28], in order to succeed in his plan of “forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions[29] (as Marx described his own goal).  Here are Marx’s words about the importance of stirring up women:

    “[G]reat progress was evident in the last Congress of the American ‘Labour Union’ in that among other things, it treated working women with complete equality.  While in this respect the English, and still more the gallant French, are burdened with a spirit of narrow-mindedness.  Anybody who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without the feminine ferment. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex (the ugly ones included) [sic].”[30]

    Notice Marx is saying that the communists need to stir up women otherwise the Marxist revolution will fail.  Marx is saying that overthrow of all of society is his goal and that stirring up women is one of the tools he is using.  Thus, it is clear that it is not the promotion of women but rather the promotion of revolution, that motivates Marx.

    That is why the communists and socialists consider the (so-called) “feminist cause” to be crucial to fomenting revolution in society.  Here is one way that the Marxists connect feminism to their broader goal of revolution:

    Women’s issues have never been viewed theoretically as only the concern of women, but were a concern of all revolutionary leaders, male and female.[31]

    The Catholic Church (and sound reasoning, as well as common sense) recognize how crucial virtuous women are for a stable, virtuous society.  Thus, the Church and civil society must safeguard women from feminism and other corruption not only for women’s sake but also because this safeguards society. 

    In 1917, Pope Benedict XV emphasized this truth, viz., that women do tremendous good or evil for civilization.  Here are his words:

    It is in fact amazing what the woman can do for the good of the human race, or for its ruin; if she should leave the common – [i.e., traditional] – road, both the civil and domestic orders are easily upset.

     

    With the decline in religion, cultured women have lost their piety, also their sense of shame; many, in order to 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.[32]

    So, it is revealing that Satan, Marx, and the Catholic Church all recognize feminism for what it is: a crucial element of Satan’s (and Marx’s) plan to destroy society and cause a rebellion against God, although Satan and the Marxists desire this destruction and the Church (and good men) oppose it.

    Part II: to be continued next month



    [5]           Romans, ch.13, vv. 1-2 & 4-5; Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846, §22.

    [6]           Here, e.g., is one way in which Sacred Scripture praises and promotes harmony and unity among people:

     

    With three things my spirit is pleased, which are approved before God and men: The concord of brethren, and the love of neighbors, and man and wife that agree well together.

     

    Ecclesiasticus, 25:1-2.

    When soldiers came to St. John the Baptist seeking to learn what God wanted them to do, St. John did not sow discontent but rather told them to “be content with your pay”.  Here are St. John’s words:

    And the soldiers also asked him [viz., St. John the Baptist], saying:  And what shall we do?  And he said to them:  Do violence to no man; neither calumniate any man; and be content with your pay.

    St. Luke’s Gospel, 3:14 (emphasis added; bracketed words added to show the context).

    [7]           Although Satan promotes all discontent, he especially promotes discontent between persons by the deadly sin of envy.  For example, Satan fomented Cain’s envy of (and murder of) his brother, Abel.  Genesis, 4:1-9.

    [8]           1 St. John, 4:8.

    [9]           Summa, Ia IIae, Q.29, a.2, ad 2.


    [10]         Here is one way St. Thomas explains this truth:

     

    The greater the friendship, the firmer and the more lasting it is.  Now, between husband and wife there seems to be the greatest friendship; for they join … for the sharing of all of home life; hence a sign of this is that man leaves even his father and mother for the sake of his wife.

     

    Summa Contra Gentiles, St. Thomas Aquinas, ch.123, §6 (emphasis added).

     

    God intends the friendship of a husband and wife to be the closest and greatest of all friendships.  Summa Supp., Q.44, a.2, ad 3.  This friendship between man and wife is the closest friendship because it is the only one complementary under the natural law (i.e., between different sexes) and which is a union in the bond of a Sacrament, resulting in the Great Life Work of women/mothers.

    [11]         Read more evidence of this truth here: https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/02/the-role-and-work-that-god-gave-to-woman/

     

    [13]         St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Ethics, Bk VIII, lect. 12, n.20 [#1271] (emphasis added).

    [14]         For a further examination of the “transgender” delusion, read this article: https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/01/the-direct-road-from-apostasy-to-gender-confusion/

     

    [15]         Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Suppl., Q.67, a.1.

    [16]         Combatting Satan’s attack on the Natural Law, St. Paul “counterattacks” by teaching this natural complementariness of man and woman which the devil mocks with the unnatural pairing of two men or two women.  A woman is not made for a woman but for a man, as St. Paul teaches:

    For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.  For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man.

    1 Corinthians, 11:6-9.

    [18]         1 Timothy, 2:15.

    [19]         1 Timothy, 5:14.

    [20]         Our focus should be spiritual.  Our material wants should be few and simple.  Our Lord teaches us:

     

    Be not solicitous therefore, saying, What shall we eat:  or what shall we

    drink, or wherewith shall we be clothed?  For after all these things do the heathens seek.  For your Father knoweth that you have need of all these things.  Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.

     

    St. Matthew’s Gospel, 6:31-33.

     

    St. Paul instructs us in the simplicity we need: “But, having food and wherewith to be covered, with these we are content”.  1 Timothy, 6:8.

     

    [21]         Here is the longer quote from Marx’s poem, The Fiddler:

     

    How so!  I plunge, plunge without fail
    My blood-black sabre into your soul.
    That art God neither wants nor wists,
    It leaps to the brain from Hell’s black mists.

     

    Till heart’s bewitched, till senses reel:
    With Satan I have struck my deal.
    He chalks the signs, beats time for me,
    I play the death march fast and free.

     

    Emphasis added.  Quoted from Volume I of Marx’s collected works, p. 23 as quoted here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/a-little-known-side-of-karl-marx-his-poetry-and-his-diabolism

     

    [22]         Here is the longer quote from Marx:

     

    Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering.  Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.  It is the opium of the people.

     

    The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.  To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.  The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

     

    Quoted from A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, by Karl Marx (emphasis added).

     

    [23]         Here is the longer quote from Marx:

     

    “There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society.  But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

     

    Communist Manifesto, Chapter II (emphasis added).

     

    [24]         Here is one way Marx taught this doctrine:

     

    In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped.  The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character.  Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.

     

    Communist Manifesto, Chapter I (emphasis added).

     

    [25]         There are some photos of the Marxist clenched fist salute here:   https://abcnews.go.com/News/history-clenched-fist/story?id=39006994

    [26]         Here is the longer quote from Marx:

    So, a god has snatched from me my all
    In the curse and rack of destiny.
    All his worlds are gone beyond recall!
    Nothing but revenge is left to me! […]

    I shall build my throne high overhead,
    Cold, tremendous shall its summit be.
    For its bulwark—superstitious dread,
    For its Marshall—blackest agony. […]

    And the Almighty’s lightning shall rebound
    From that massive iron giant.
    If he bring my walls and towers down,
    Eternity shall raise them up, defiant.  

    Volume one of Marx’s collected works, pp. 563–64, as quoted here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/a-little-known-side-of-karl-marx-his-poetry-and-his-diabolism (emphasis added).

    Karl Marx also declared: “I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above.”  Quoted here: https://www.azquotes.com/author/9564-Karl_Marx?p=2

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

    [28]         Ferment – n.  “A state of unrest : agitation” : “a process of active, often disorderly, development”.  Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.

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

    [30]         Karl Marx, Selected Letters: The Personal Correspondence 1844-1877 as quoted https://feminists-against-feminism.tumblr.com/feminism_is_marxian (emphasis added; parenthetical words in the original).


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

    There is no limiting for the evil “right to choose”

     

    If a mother’s (so-called) “right to choose” means she can choose to kill her baby before he is born, why can’t she choose to kill her baby after he’s born?  How about when her baby is 3 years old?  Or 8?  Where’s the cut-off?  …  Or is there one?

     

    The Importance and Need for Stay-At-Home Moms

    … to ensure happy families on earth and in heaven.

    The importance of having mothers at home was recognized for thousands of years.  It was just common sense.  The fathers earned a living, while the mothers were home tending the home fires.

    This was not seriously challenged until World War II, and in a major way, later, by feminism.  (More on this later.)  

    It was not easy to pry the American woman out of her home.  Her contributions (as nurse, teacher, cook, baker, cleaner, nurturer, etc.) had always been recognized as essential to the well-being and happiness of the family.  However, the push for women to get the vote in the 1920s was used as a push to get women out of the home.  If it wasn’t very successful then, its time arrived in the ‘40s when World War II called millions of American men to fight for their country.  This must have been the moment the Left had been waiting for: a logical call for American women to replace their husbands in the factories for patriotic reasons.

    “Rosie the Riveter” was the symbol.  In posters and billboards everywhere, curls stuck out of her red kerchief while she took her husband’s place on the production line, making it clear she was a female “doing her part.”  And the media loved it.  Even when the war ended, they encouraged women to “seek fulfillment” in their lives, not so subtly suggesting that, of course, they couldn’t expect to find fulfillment as housewives.  Thus, when the men came home from the war, some women weren’t in any hurry to return to the domestic scene, and many were persuaded that it was more exciting to work outside the home.  It was only later that the women were bombarded with the idea that being a housewife was just a job – and that what she wanted was a CAREER.  You had to have a career or you were a dull, boring person who didn’t have this exciting other dimension to you.

    But overlooked in the scramble to get a job was the question of who would take her place at home?  Who would take care of the children?  In the beginning, grandma.  However, the advent of the commercial daycare centers greatly reduced having to ask grandma to care for her grandchildren so mom could work outside the home.

    (The other side of the coin was the devil’s other solution: to use birth control and have fewer children.  This contributed to the birth rate being way down across the world.)

     

    Even so, daycare was not the perfect solution, of course.  Not only does daycare cost so much that it takes a serious bite out of the extra income that mom brings in, but it is notorious for passing on sickness from one child to another.  The problems of the daycare centers have been widely documented.  Some are sub-standard, unsanitary, poorly regulated, and run by incompetents, as well as those that are ably and reasonably proficient.  There was (and is) a huge disparity between them. 

    But if the daycare centers provided the illusion that the little ones were adequately cared for, then that seemed to solve the major impediment to mom getting an outside job.

    A second major reason that some women left their homes for the job market was the lure of a second paycheck.  Where their parents’ and grandparents’ generations had been willing to wait for those extras like new carpeting, nicer homes, and new cars, most of today’s families were persuaded that they didn’t have to wait to have a boat or fancier vacations if the mother of the family was bringing in a paycheck too.

    And as to this paycheck, women were told they should expect to earn the same as men.  This brought things like the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) into being, opening the door for multiple other items on the liberal/feminist agenda.  (Side note for younger readers, perhaps:  The ERA might have sounded like a fair and just amendment, but in reality, it would have caused great havoc with our society, negatively impacting American life in general, and the well-being of women in particular.)

    Here are just a few of the ERA’s harmful consequences:

    1.    The ERA would be used to overturn all restrictions on abortion;

    2.    The ERA would be used to mandate taxpayer funding of elective Medicaid abortions;

    3.    The ERA would remove gender designations from bathrooms, locker rooms, jails, and hospital rooms;

    4.    The ERA would not give women any more rights than they currently have; and

    5.    The ERA would overturn laws and practices that benefit women because they would be viewed as showing preferential treatment to women.

    For example:

      Workplace laws that provide special accommodations for expectant mothers;

      State labor laws and guidelines which benefit women who do heavy, manual labor;

      Social Security benefits for stay-at-home mothers based on their spouse’s income; and

      Exemption of women from the military draft and front-line combat.

     Here is the ERA’s history in a nutshell:

    The U.S. House of Representatives passed the ERA in 1972, but by law, it had to be ratified by ¾ of the states within seven years in order to be a part of the Constitution of our country.  After untold Conservative efforts to educate people on the dangers of this amendment, the ERA failed to be ratified. 

    Unfortunately, the Left was able to get a three-year extension, which (thankfully) ended in 1982 without the required number of states ratifying it.  (Also, five states that had approved it, rescinded their ratification after better understanding the dangers of the proposed amendment.) 

    Currently, there is a new push to entice additional states to ratify, with Nevada succumbing in 2017, Illinois in 2018, and Virginia in 2020.) 

    End of this brief history lesson. 

    Let’s get back to our look at women and how they were enticed out of their homes.  What had been (disastrously) overlooked was how important the mother was to the family and how the family would suffer in her absence.

    Yes, this article focuses on the absence of mothers in the home, but for just a moment let us digress and talk briefly about the absence of fathers in the home.  This move was facilitated by a huge change that was thrust on the American ethos with the idea of “single mothers.”  This was a new term that was introduced and repeated to legitimize the idea of women “voluntarily” raising their children by themselves.  The gradual acceptance of the idea of “single mothers” contributed to the assault on marriage by the huge increase of couples temporarily living together without the benefit of marriage.  The removal of the stigma attached to this sinful way of life accomplished the disastrous objective of making it so common that it spread far and wide.

    What greatly contributed to the rise of “single mothers” was the destructive welfare system, which increased the monthly check for every baby she bore out of wedlock.  It was a money-maker for some.  (What does that teach the next generation?) 

     

    Another evil result of the absence of fathers in the home was that boys lacked a male role model, and thus, many tended to become feminized, (which may contribute to the confusion in so many young minds as to whether they should use the boys’ or the girls’ bathrooms, for example.)

    Returning to our subject of women being absent from the home.  Women moved from factory jobs into offices, stores, industries, etc.  Home life suffered.  Many tried to “do it all” but found it impossible, merely a step along the path toward frustration, exhaustion, and ulcers.  Seemingly, common sense would tell you that working at an outside job for 40 hours a week is hardly compatible with a smoothly-running home where laundry is done in a timely manner, beds are changed regularly, nutritious meals are the norm; where children can be listened to, instructed, guided, monitored, etc

    (Note to widows or mothers involuntarily in circumstances where they are doing the job by themselves: You are not included in this disparagement.  The valiant job you find yourselves required to do needs no explanation or justification.) 

    However, it might be instructive to consider some of the possible consequences of women taking jobs outside the home:

    1.    As mentioned above, the cost of hiring a sitter or paying for daycare is formidable.  It swallows a big chunk of that extra paycheck;

    2.    There is little or no supervision of the children after school.  This can’t be a good thing.  The children become part of that sad world of Latchkey Children coming home to an empty house;

    3.    Second car expenses must be figured into any financial cost;

    4.    More money spent on more clothes for the women;

    5.    Rushed meals, in many cases more expensive meals, thrown-together with increased fast food elements and convenience foods; not particularly healthy meals;

    6.    The time crunch leaves little or no time for problem-solving family discussions around the dinner table (where problems often are first recognized and resolved);

    7.    Guilt at spending less and less time with the children.  (There’s always so much to do she doesn’t have time to sit and find out how things are going in their lives, at school, in the neighborhood, etc.)  This is also where some strange idea that the student picked up might come to light and be explored, explained, and debunked, if necessary.

    8.    It often precipitates arguments about whose job it is to (fill in the blank here, e.g., empty the dishwasher, throw the next load in, make the lunches);

    9.    Frequently can’t scrutinize the children’s friends;

    10. Often hasn’t the time to follow up on whether homework is finished or chores completed;

    11. Discipline usually suffers;

    12. No time for a kneel-down family rosary; and

    13. Impossible to monitor children’s time with entertainment, as well as a tendency toward laxity in using entertainment such as TV, video games, social media, or electronic devices.

     Now, if you are a traditional Catholic home-schooling family, you may be way ahead of the game because you may not have to worry about most, if not all, of those 13 problem areas listed above.  For example, you may not have a TV.  And the home-schooling family tends to have a closer eye on who their children are playing with. 

    And the children don’t need latchkeys, and a rosary always begins the class day, etc.  But let’s get real, right?  Can being a stay-at-home mother guarantee life will be a bed of roses?  Frankly, no.  But learning what works (and what doesn’t) goes a long way toward making your load easier.  And having the mother in the home is a huge step toward successfully raising and educating your family.

    Now it is not pandering to women to point out how indispensable they are in the family.  When I hear someone speak condescendingly about women wasting their time (and talents) changing diapers, and making snarky remarks about the “little woman” baking her chocolate chip cookies, I want to sit her down and explain the facts of domestic life to her.  (Because it’s almost always “working women” – often guilt-filled – who attempt to disparage the stay-at-home mom.)  I want to point out to her that it isn’t vacuuming the house, shopping for groceries, doing the laundry, etc. that make that mother’s job important, essential as those things are.  It’s being there:

    ·         to comfort a child with a skinned knee;

    ·         holding her daughter’s hand when she gets her first shot;

    ·         listening to her son’s grievance against the neighbor kid;

    ·         taking him to the orthodontist;

    ·         instructing her daughter how to write a thank you note to her grandmother;

    ·         listening to her spelling-words;

    ·         teaching her son his Mass server’s Confiteor;

    ·         helping her daughter on her first sewing project;

    ·         guiding her son’s preparation for the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test);

    ·         etc., etc

    And that doesn’t even include the obvious things like: making a child’s special birthday dinner, taking the dog to the vet; and two of the most important things: – recognizing that that kid from the end of the block is up to no good, and guiding her son away from him; and also, welcoming home at the end of the day the father of the family.

    To sum up, the mother’s job is one of the most important jobs in the world: to create a happy, God-centered family, to make a home that is a good place to be.