Catholic Candle note: This is a “companion” article to these two articles:

❖  The one regarding men being more blamable than women or children for the ongoing destruction in civil society and in the human element of the Catholic Church.  That other article is entitled: The Crisis in Society is Caused by Unmanly Men, and can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/07/22/the-crisis-in-society-is-caused-by-unmanly-men/

❖  The article entitled: The False Principle of “Diversity and Inclusion”: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/01/05/the-false-principle-of-diversity-and-inclusion/

God created man to lead his family and society.  He created the all-male clergy to lead the Church.  But in all of those contexts, God gave this role and authority to man for the good of his family, society, and the Church, not merely to enable a man to fulfill his own selfish desires.  St. Paul puts this same duty as follows:

We that are stronger, ought to bear the infirmities of the weak.

Romans, 15:1.

From this principle (which is a commandment) springs the unselfish gentlemanliness of a good man towards his family and also, secondarily, towards all women, children, and all those in need.

St. Paul explains how this true manliness is practiced in marriage, when he compares the husband to Christ Himself: 

The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the

Church.

Ephesians, 5:23. 

We know that Christ has loved us and gave everything for our sake:

Walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath delivered Himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness.

Ephesians, 5:2. 

Thus, a man must be Christ-like and be an oblation and a sacrifice first of all, for God, then for his wife and children.  But after that, he must be a gentleman and be chivalrous for all women, children, and all those in need because:

We that are stronger, ought to bear the infirmities of the weak.

Romans, 15:1.

A man’s sacrificial love must extend to a man “delivering himself up for” his wife especially, in order to sanctify his wife, as St. Paul makes clear:

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered Himself up for it; that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life.

Ephesians, 5:25-6. 

This shows that man must be a spiritual director of his wife.[1]  But this also shows that a man must have Christ’s spirit of self-sacrifice and this is eminently honorable, magnanimous, and manly.

Fatherhood and Manhood

Fatherhood and manhood are so intertwined that they are virtually inseparable.  This is like the inextricable connection between womanhood and motherhood.[2]  A man who is not called to be the father to children in his own family, is still called to be a father in other ways, e.g., a priest, who is the spiritual father of a parish.  There are also many other ways a man is called to be a father, a protector, an advisor, and a guide, such as an employer should be a father to his employees.[3]

So, fatherhood (patriarchy) is simply men fulfilling the role for which God created them and which role is His Will for them.  Here is how anti-feminist author, Mrs. Donna Steichen, stated this truth of Nature and of the Catholic Faith:

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.[4]

St. Athanasius, a Model of Fatherhood

We see this fatherhood in the life and work of the great St. Athanasius, Doctor of the Church, in his care for his flock.  Look at his fatherly solicitude for his flock in the letter below, written during the persecutions they suffered:

Letter of St. Athanasius to his flock

May God console you! …  What saddens you … is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith.  You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you.  Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith?  The true Faith, obviously.  Who has lost and who has won in this struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?

True, the premises are good when the apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way. …  You are the ones who are happy: you who remain within the church by your faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from apostolic Tradition.  And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded.  They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.

No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers.  And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church.  They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray.

Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.

The Selfless Duty of a Man Corresponds to the Duty of Obedience of Those under His Care.

We saw above that God made man to be the leader of his family and made man to lead society and the Church.  Along with this God-given role, God made man with the obligation to unselfishly fulfill his role for the good of those under his care.  This is the natural and supernatural source of the gentlemanliness and fatherliness that God intends to be part of manhood and to be exercised by men everywhere.

So just as God made parents to be wiser than the children whom they are raising and to be well-suited for directing their children, so God gave parents the corresponding duty to selflessly raise those children and to govern their children for the good of those children, rather than for any selfish advantage of the parents.

Because God made the father and the mother wiser and well-suited to direct their children, He declared that children have the corresponding obligation to the parents to be subject to them.  Thus, God commands children:

Honor thy father and thy mother.

Exodus, 20:12.

So, we see that God requires the parents’ efforts to selflessly raise their children and requires the corresponding obedience of the children to enable the success of those efforts.

Analogously, just as God made man to be wiser than woman and to be adept at guiding her, so God gave man the duty to guide his wife selflessly and to govern her for her own good, rather than for any selfish advantage to himself. 

As God requires the man’s diligent efforts to guide his wife, so God requires the obedience of the wife in a way analogous to the way that God requires the obedience of the children to both parents.  Thus, God commands:

Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord.

Ephesians, 5:22.

With children obeying their parents and with wives obeying their husbands, we see the orderliness and harmony of God’s All-Wise Plan.

Further Reflections on the Connection between a Man’s Duty to Selflessly Guide and His Wife’s Duty to Diligently Obey

St. John Chrysostom shows the orderliness and concord of God’s plan (i.e., the man’s selfless governing and the wife’s careful obedience), in these words addressed to each man:

Govern your wife, and thus will the whole house be in harmony.  Hear what St. Paul says. ‘And if they [wives] would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home’ [1 Cor. 14:35].[5]

St. Paul shows a man’s selfless governing of his wife must be Christlike just as her diligent obedience to her husband must be like the obedience of the Church to Christ:

Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the Church: being Himself the Savior of the body. But as the Church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything.

Ephesians, 5:22-24.

The Obedience We Must Give to Those Whom God Places over Us Is Not Vexing

Some women, with a less womanly (and more tom-boyish or manly) spirit, might dislike the truth that they must obey their husbands.  But women should no more be saddened by the Catholic Faith (and true philosophy – i.e., reason) telling them to obey their husbands, than children should be saddened to obey their parents raising them.

Similarly, laymen should not be saddened or minimize the obedience that God willed that they give to their priests and to the hierarchy throughout the entire history of the Church.  To be saddened or to minimize the obedience we owe, shows an imperfect spirit and stinginess with God – just as (analogously) being saddened by the approach of Lent with its obligations of greater penance. 

How happy and attractive is the willing obedience of children to their parents and students to their teachers!  How happy and attractive is willing obedience of wives to their husbands, of laymen to the Church authorities, and of citizens to the rulers God has given to them![6]

This Duty of a Man to Govern Well and the Duty of Obedience of those under his Care, Show the Orderliness of God’s Creation and His All-Wise Plan

God does everything is a way which is most orderly and perfect.  Let us look at what is required for this orderliness. 

Difference is the basis for the order in things.  If there were no differences between things, there could be no order between them.  The very idea of order includes within it the concept of priority and of posteriority, and hence, of difference and inequality.  In fact, that very separateness, i.e., the distinctions among things, is the principle of all order.

Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Church, teaches this important point, quoting Aristotle:

As the Philosopher says (Metaph. v, text. 16), the terms “before” and “after” are used in reference to some principle.  Now order implies that certain things are, in some way, before or after.  Hence, wherever there is a principle, there must needs be also order of some kind.

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.26, a.1 respondeo.

God makes creatures unequal.

God made difference and inequality in all creatures.  As Ecclesiasticus teaches:

Why does one day excel another, and one light another, and one year another year…?  By the knowledge of the Lord, they were distinguished.

Ecclesiasticus, Ch. 33, vv. 7-8.

Therefore, just as God’s Wisdom is the cause of His making all creatures, so His Wisdom is the cause of Him making creatures unequal. 

Here is St. Thomas Aquinas’ fuller explanation of this truth:

[I]t must be said that as the wisdom of God is the cause of the distinction of things, so the same wisdom is the cause of their inequality.  This may be explained as follows.  A twofold distinction is found in things; one is a formal distinction as regards things differing specifically; the other is a material distinction as regards things differing numerically only.  And as the matter is on account of the form, material distinction exists for the sake of the formal distinction.  Hence, we see that in incorruptible things there is only one individual of each species, forasmuch as the species is sufficiently preserved in the one; whereas in things generated and corruptible there are many individuals of one species for the preservation of the species.  Whence it appears that formal distinction is of greater consequence than material.  Now, formal distinction always requires inequality, because as the Philosopher says (Metaph. viii, 10), the forms of things are like numbers in which species vary by addition or subtraction of unity.  Hence, in natural things species seem to be arranged in degrees; as the mixed things are more perfect than the elements, and plants than minerals, and animals than plants, and men than other animals; and in each of these, one species is more perfect than others.  Therefore, as the divine wisdom is the cause of the distinction of things for the sake of the perfection of the universe, so it is the cause of inequality.  For the universe would not be perfect if only one grade of goodness were found in things.

Summa, Ia, Q.47, a.2 respondeo (emphasis added).

By making some creatures inferior to other creatures, the whole of creation is more perfect than it otherwise would be.

Here is St. Thomas Aquinas’ fuller explanation of this truth:

It is part of the best agent to produce an effect which is best in its entirety; but this does not mean that He makes every part of the whole the best absolutely, but in proportion to the whole; in the case of an animal, for instance, its goodness would be taken away if every part of it had the dignity of an eye.  Thus, therefore, God also made the universe to be best as a whole, according to the mode of a creature; whereas He did not make each single creature best, but one better than another.  And therefore, we find it said of each creature, “God saw the light, that it was good” (Genesis 1:4); and in like manner of each one of the rest.  But of all together it is said, “God saw all the things that He had made, and they were very good” (Genesis 1:31).

Summa, Ia, Q.47, a.2, ad 1.

So, we see that the different roles of men and women are part of God’s wise plan and the order of the family and society.  The man’s duty and the corresponding obedience of those under his care are an inequality which results in God’s creation being more orderly, since inequality is necessary for order.

That very idea of order includes within it the concept of priority and of posteriority, and hence, of difference.  In fact, those very differences, i.e., the distinctions among people, is the essential principle of all familial, social, political, economic, military, and religious order.  For example, in a proper military order, an army cannot have all generals or all privates.  The army cannot have all equipment operators or all cooks.  And so on.

St. Paul emphasizes that God made men unequal and made them to have different roles, strengths, and weaknesses.  Here are St. Paul’s words:

For as the body is one, and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ.  For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink.  For the body also is not one member, but many.  If the foot should say, because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?  And if the ear should say, because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?  If the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing?  If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling?  But now God hath set the members every one of them in the body as it hath pleased Him.  And if they all were one member, where would be the body?  But now there are many members indeed, yet one body.  And the eye cannot say to the hand: I need not thy help; nor again the head to the feet: I have no need of you.  Yea, much more those that seem to be the more feeble members of the body, are more necessary.  And such as we think to be the less honorable members of the body, about these we put more abundant honor; and those that are our uncomely parts, have more abundant comeliness.  But our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, giving to that which wanted the more abundant honor, that there might be no schism in the body; but the members might be mutually careful one for another.  And if one member suffers anything, all the members suffer with it; or if one member glory, all the members rejoice with it.

1 Corinthians, 12:12-27 (emphasis added).

As St. Paul shows us, God did not make every man to play whatever role that man chooses.  Some men are made more honorable members of society, some, less.  Some men are made the “eyes” of the collective group and some are made the “feet”.  Id.

St. Paul emphasizes that these differences between men give rise to the obligation that “the members might be mutually careful one for another”.  Id.

Part of this inequality which is planned by the Wisdom of God, is the inequality between men and women.  Although, in a way, the Eternal Wisdom made all unequal creatures to be complementary (as well as unequal), this is especially true of men and women.

Thus, God made man and woman to be especially complementary because of the very different and harmonious roles that He intends them to have in life.

Man must Fulfill the Role for which God Created Him

We saw above that God’s order in creation is most perfect and that God made the most perfect possible universe.  Part of the perfection of this order is God creating men to have the authority and the responsibility of unselfishly protecting, guiding, and caring for those whom God put under their charge (their wives, children, and, perhaps, others).

Thus, we see that men are to blame for most of the evil of the feminism that we see all around us.  Men are really the evil “fathers” of feminism and are more responsible for the feminist revolution than women are. 

Because man is the head of woman, it is principally man’s failure in his role and duty of manhood that gives rise to feminism.

Man’s failures of his responsibilities are of two types:

1.    He sometimes fails because he is irresponsible and lazy.  This results in him failing to be selfless and diligent in expending himself to rule, to guide, and to promote the welfare of those under his care – and to do his duty even when he does not feel like doing so. 

2.    A man sometimes fails because he is selfish and predatory.  This results in him abusing the authority that God gave him by using it for his own self-interest and advantage, instead of for the interests of those under his care.

We will look at each of these failures in turn.

Man’s Failure to do His Duty because He is Irresponsible or Lazy

A man is not only responsible for governing himself, but also for the proper order in the other members of his family (and of society to the extent part of it is under his care). 

A man commits this type of failure when he does not want to correct or guide someone who needs it and for whom he is responsible.  Although this failure can be a mortal sin, it is not as grave a sin as the second type of failure mentioned above (viz., using his authority to aggrandize himself).

Men are most to blame for disorder in their families and similarly are most to blame for disorder in society.  If we had more true men, then feminism would come to an end, and society would have more true women. 

A man who is not so evil as to promote the feminist revolution, is still to blame if he fails in his duty to diligently do his part to lead women and all of society to reject feminism (as well as other evils).  Part of a man’s duty is to govern and guide his own wife.  By failing to do this, he is derelict in his duties like a king who does not rule his kingdom because he wants to devote all his time to gambling, or the chase (e.g., foxes), or some other pastime. 

Here is how St. John Chrysostom taught this truth (preaching to the men of his congregation):

Govern your wife, and thus will the whole house be in harmony.  Hear what St. Paul says. ‘And if they [wives] would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home’ [1 Cor. 14:35].[7]

We see here that St. John Chrysostom is reminding men that they must govern their wives so that the home and family are orderly and harmonious. 

Of course, it is not only a man’s wife that he must guide but also anyone else for whom he is responsible – most commonly his children.  We see an example of this duty being breached in the first book of Kings, where God says concerning Heli:

I will judge his house for ever, for iniquity, because he knew that his sons did wickedly, and did not chastise them.

1 Kings, 3:13 (emphasis added).

Besides a man’s responsibility for his wife and children, he might have various responsibilities for leading society (or part of society) in some other way.  He must use his authority and carefully fulfill his responsibility in order for society to be orderly and harmonious.  This is why Pope St. Pius X admonished men that:

In our days more than ever, the greatest strength of evil men is the cowardice and weakness of those who are good.[8]

When men fail to fulfill their duties to their families or to society, – and most men are failing in our times – it causes chaos and strife in society.  So, it is plain that men are most to blame for the problems in society that we see all around us.

The Second Way a Man can Fail in His Duty to Care for those in his Charge is by being Selfish and Predatory.

In the Charles Dickens novel, Nicholas Nickleby, there is a memorable example of a man using his authority for his own selfish advantage.  This novel depicts an English country schoolmaster, Squeers, who uses his authority over his students for his own advantage, instead of selflessly seeking to benefit his students, as he should have.  Below, Schoolmaster Squeers explains to his new assistant schoolmaster, Nicholas Nickleby, how he “teaches” his students:

‘This is the first class in English spelling and philosophy, Nickleby,’ said Squeers, beckoning Nicholas to stand beside him.  ‘We’ll get up a Latin one, and hand that over to you.  Now, then, where’s the first boy?’

‘Please, sir, he’s cleaning the back-parlor window,’ said the temporary head of the philosophical class.

‘So he is, to be sure,’ rejoined Squeers.  ‘We go upon the practical mode of teaching, Nickleby; the regular education system. C-l-e-a-n, clean, verb active, to make bright, to scour.  W-i-n, win, d-e-r, der, winder, a casement.  When the boy knows this out of book, he goes and does it. It’s just the same principle as the use of the globes. Where’s the second boy?’

‘Please, sir, he’s weeding the garden,’ replied a small voice.

‘To be sure,’ said Squeers, by no means disconcerted.  ‘So he is.  B-o-t, bot, t-i-n, tin, bottin, n-e-y, ney, bottinney, noun substantive, a knowledge of plants.  When he has learned that bottinney means a knowledge of plants, he goes and knows ‘em. Thats our system, Nickleby: what do you think of it?’

‘It’s very useful one, at any rate,’ answered Nicholas.

‘I believe you,’ rejoined Squeers, not remarking the emphasis of his usher. ‘Third boy, what’s horse?’

A beast, sir,’ replied the boy.

‘So it is,’ said Squeers.

‘Ain’t it, Nickleby?’

‘I believe there is no doubt of that, sir,’ answered Nicholas.

‘Of course there isn’t,’ said Squeers.  ‘A horse is a quadruped, and quadruped’s Latin for beast, as everybody that’s gone through the grammar knows, or else where’s the use of having grammars at all?’

‘Where, indeed!’ said Nicholas abstractedly.

‘As you’re perfect in that,’ resumed Squeers, turning to the boy, ‘go and look after MY horse, and rub him down well, or I’ll rub you down.  The rest of the class go and draw water up, till somebody tells you to leave off, for it’s washing-day tomorrow, and they want the coppers filled.’[9]

This example, of course, is an appalling caricature of a man abusing his authority.  Squeers is in charge but his authority is for the good of his students, in order to teach them and to develop their minds.  Instead, he seeks only his own advantage and not their good.

This is like the importance of a judge using his authority for the sake of justice.  He might not render judgment in the way desired by those whose case is before him.  But he must not render judgment in a self-interested way (e.g., according to who pays him the largest bribes, or by inflicting harm on someone because of hatred rather than justice).

Similarly, God made a man to be in charge of his family (and, sometimes, in charge of others too).  But He gave this authority for the good of those he governs – not to be used selfishly.

So, the authority a man has over his family requires their obedience to his decisions.  This is why St. Paul commanded women:

Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord.

Ephesians, 5:22

But a man must use his God-given authority for the good of those under his care.  St. Paul tells men how they must use their authority, namely sacrificially, for the good of their wives, not for their own selfish advantage:

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered Himself up for it.

Ephesians, 5:25 (emphasis added).

When a man uses his authority for his own selfish advantage, using the levers of his power and authority to aggrandize himself, this is an abuse. 

Although a man must govern for the good of those under his care, that does not necessarily mean exercising his authority according to their preferences.  So, e.g., if a school boy told his teacher that learning to read was too hard and begged to be allowed to play during reading class, the teacher would be required to exercise his authority to have the boy learn to read.

The Proper Order: Manly Men and Womanly Women

Right-thinking people of both sexes want men to be manly men and not act like women.[10]  Thus, the most perfect man – viz., Our Lord – is the manliest of men.  St. Gregory Nazianzen, Doctor of the Church, stated the truth of Our Lord’s Manhood:

There is in Him [i.e., Christ] nothing womanly, nothing unmanly.[11]

Men must be clear-thinking, strong of will, virtuous, and strong of body, to the best of their efforts.  When a man’s body fails him due to disease or age, he must continue in virtue, in the clarity of thought, in the strength of will (and body) to the best of his ability.  The manliest thing a man can do is control himself and this is his first responsibility at any age.

To take a parallel example, just as right-thinking persons of both sexes want men to be manly, so in the same way, all right-thinking citizens want policemen to have and to exercise their authority in a manly way.  Similarly, they want policemen to be strong of body and forceful (so they can do their duty to enforce the law). 

Of course, if that policeman unjustly takes a woman’s purse (for example), this is wrong whether that policeman took her purse by abusing his authority (e.g., by ordering her to give him her purse) or by abusing his strength to take her purse because he is stronger than she is. 

The problem is not that policemen are strong and have authority.  They must have strength and authority to do their job well!  The problem would be if they abuse that strength or authority.  Such abuse does not change the fact that policemen should have manly authority and strength.  But if they abuse these things, then they are bad, unworthy of their position, and are deserving of punishment.

When policemen abuse their authority or strength, this shows they are poor-excuses for policemen, just like a man is a poor-excuse for a man (i.e., unmanly) if he is a bully. 

The Poisonous Leftist Lies They Call “Toxic Masculinity”

As we saw above, God made men to be manly.  This is obviously true since God made creation perfect and He made men to be men, not women.  But how does this fit with the leftists’ continual condemnation of so-called “toxic masculinity”?

Here is one modern dictionary which parrots the leftist position and defines “toxic masculinity” as follows:

A cultural concept of manliness that glorifies stoicism, strength, virility, and dominance, and that is socially maladaptive or harmful to mental health[12]

Similarly, the leftists say things like this:

Traditional masculinity – marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance, and aggression – is, on the whole, harmful.[13]

The leftists add things like this:

Achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence, … these standards are damaging to mental and physical health.[14]

But God made men to be like men because that is exactly how He wants them to be, viz., manly.  The leftists say that men should stop being men and should start being like women.  For example, leftists say things like this:

To the extent that any vision of “nontoxic” masculinity is proposed, it ends up sounding more like stereotypical femininity than anything else: Guys should learn to be more sensitive, quiet and socially apt ….[15]

But God intended that men have exactly the traits of a man.  God intends a man to be strong, clear-thinking, organized, sacrificial, goal-oriented, virtuous, and dedicated to using his manhood for the work God gave to him.  A man must use his manhood to serve God and to guide and to care for those that God put under his charge.

It is certainly not manly – but rather is selfish and disgusting – for man to use his manhood to “walk all over everyone else” for his own selfish interests and to grab from them whatever he desires.  God made a man stronger to protect those who are weaker, not to abuse his strength to take advantage of them. 

This is just like the example we gave above of the policeman.  He should be a man of authority and strength but should use these for the good of those over whom he has authority.

In fact, a man who uses his greater strength of mind and body as well as his authority, for his own self-interest – to selfishly grab pleasures and wealth without regard to truth, justice, purity, and to God’s law, is a poor excuse for a man, since he does not follow his reason, which directs him to live according to virtue and not according to sin. 

A man should live according to reason.  But to live for himself alone is most unreasonable.  Such a man’s life of sin is most disordered and shows that such a man is really a slave to his passions and is dominated by vice. 

So, the leftists fail to make the necessary (and obvious) distinction.  The traits of manhood are good, important, and are made by God (just as are the traits of womanhood).  But a man can use those traits well, as God intends, or he can abuse them to commit sin and to abuse those under his care.  This is like the fact that a hammer is good but can be abused, e.g., if it were used as a weapon in a robbery.

So, it is not virility, strength, or dominance themselves that are “toxic”, only the way that those traits are abused.  If men are not virile and strong in character, they are not fully men, after all.

Virtuous and manly men are society’s essential protectors, guides, and managers.  Human society needs traits like these for its very preservation.  By contrast, a bad and vicious man:

➢  uses his God-given protective abilities as an armed robber, a serial killer, etc.; 

➢  uses his God-given guiding ability to guide people toward his own selfish interests; and

 

➢  uses his God-given managing ability to direct persons or society to his selfish and demonic advantage.

So, what we need to do is promote true Catholicism, holiness, and virtue so that masculinity (which is a work of God) is used for the good.[16]  And plainly, man being the way God intends him to be, viz., a virtuous and manly man, is necessary for his happiness and his success in life.  This is the opposite of the leftist lie that man being this way would be “damaging to mental and physical health”.[17]

Even most men who consider themselves “Traditional Catholic” are weak because they are products of the society in which they live.  Most men nowadays are soft and habituated to a life of ease, pleasure, and comfort.

A Man’s Duty to Learn to Be Manly and to Teach His Sons to be Manly Men

If any man were to find himself unprepared for his role in life, he must diligently prepare himself by effort, training, and practice – better late than never!  This is analogous to the duty of a woman if she is not prepared for the role for which God created her.  She must diligently learn and prepare herself when she comes to understand her duty.

A crucial part of the man’s selfless duty towards his family is his obligation to raise his sons to be able to perform well this role for which God created them.  In the years before a boy or young man has entered into the vocation to which God will call him, he is being raised in a family in which he is “apprenticed” in the “school” of manliness, especially being trained by his father.

Men’s Duty to be Paternal and Gentlemanly

So, we see that God’s Plan answers all of society’s problems.  That is, the Catholic life (with every person fulfilling his God-given responsibilities) is the answer to all of society’s ills and so we should live this Catholic life fully!

In this, we see the “recipe” for happiness: fulfilling our duties of state according to God’s Plan – viz., men living and acting their traditional and natural role as men, in the way God made them.  And in a complementary way, women acting in their traditional and natural role as women, living the womanly life that God made them to live.

As our world gets more and more irrational and absurd (as well as more pagan and immoral), we see the answer to this crisis all around us is that our future is our past (viz., Catholic Tradition), as Pope St. Pius X used to remind us:

The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.[18]

But the devil apes this genuine Catholic solution causing the strife of his own counterfeit “solutions”.  For example:

➢  Instead of a man’s duty to selflessly care and govern his family, the devil promotes feminism and the “women’s equality” movement, in which women battle for their supposed “rights” and they declare they don’t need to be under the care of their husbands; and 

➢  Instead of an employer acting as a father to his employees, acting for their good, the devil promotes the false “solution” of employees battling for their supposed rights as directed by Marxist ideology. 

Because of Original Sin, men (and women) don’t always live up to their vocations and responsibilities.  But men should show respect for women and, more than that, they should honor women, cherish them, and be chivalrous.  God gave women into the care of their men.  This is the true, natural, and Catholic way of life.  

Men should show this chivalry in many ways, large and small, e.g., changing a flat tire for a woman motorist at the side of the road, opening a door for a woman (although she is capable of opening a door herself), giving her his seat on a crowded train, offering to help her carry her heavy packages, even when she is capable of lifting them herself, etc.

Men should be courteous to women, charitable, respectful, polite, attentive, considerate, patient, thoughtful, obliging, listening well, not failing to listen because they are formulating a new comment while a woman is talking.

God made men to compete with men.  God made women to be man’s helpmate, not his competitor.  That is one reason why the Catholic Church overcame paganism to instill into a man to be a gentleman and to be gallant toward women. 

Women and girls have their own role and dignity in God’s Plan.  God did not put them on earth merely for men’s selfishness (any more than men are on earth only for women’s selfishness).  Rather, God made women to collaborate with men in the work God intends them to accomplish, in the roles for which God created them in the family.[19]

Men should treat all women as images of Our Lady.

The weightiest lesson of all comes from the law to love our neighbors as ourselves, which St. Paul applies to women (wives) in particular:

Thus, ought husbands also to love their wives as their own bodies. Who loveth his wife, loveth himself, for no one ever hated one’s own flesh (Eph. 5:28-29).

The Catholic Church has ever been the leaven which fosters the dignity of women.  This is what the Catholic Church has to say in the context of the family:

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it.

Ephesians 5:25. 

This means that, as Christ gave His Life for His Church, a husband should give/devote his life to his wife and to her true good.

Our Lord teaches us the generosity we should have for each other, and husbands for their wives: “Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”  St. John’s Gospel, 15:31.  Husbands should remember that their wives should be their best friends.

A man who loves much does not “count the cost” and he gladly sacrifices everything for his friend (especially his wife and children):

If a man should give all the substance of his house for love, he shall despise it as nothing.

Canticle of Canticles, 8:7.

We should take to heart also, as regards the women in our midst (and men, too), what our Holy Redeemer taught us:

As ye would that others should treat you, so do ye likewise to them.  …  So be compassionate as your Father also hath compassion.  Judge ye not, and ye shall not be judged.  Condemn ye not, and ye shall not be condemned.  Forgive ye, and ye shall be forgiven.  Give ye, and it shall be given unto you.  They shall give into your bosom good measure, pressed down and shaken together and overflowing.  For it shall be meted unto you again with the same measure wherewith ye have meted.

St. Luke’s Gospel, 12:31, 36-38.

 
Conclusion

God made man to be manly, to selflessly use his greater strength of mind and body for the good of those that God has placed under his care. 

Let men be manly and gentlemanly!

Catholic Candle note: The article below is part 2 of an analysis of the duties and role that God has given to men.  The first part of this article is here: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/09/26/the-duties-and-role-that-god-has-given-men/

This entire article is a “companion” article to these two articles:

❖  The one regarding men being more blamable than women or children for the ongoing destruction in civil society and in the human element of the Catholic Church.  That other article is entitled: The Crisis in Society is Caused by Unmanly Men, and can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/07/22/the-crisis-in-society-is-caused-by-unmanly-men/

❖  The article entitled: The False Principle of “Diversity and Inclusion”: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/01/05/the-false-principle-of-diversity-and-inclusion/

The Duties and Role that God has given Men – Part 2

Synopsis of the first part of this article:

In part 1, we saw that God made a hierarchy in everything.  That is, in all of reality one thing is ordered to another.

Manhood and Fatherhood are inextricably intertwined (like Womanhood and Motherhood).  Even for a man who is not called by God to be a father to children in his own family, he is still called to be a father in other ways, e.g., a priest, who is the spiritual father of a parish. 

God made man to lead and to be responsible for his family and, to one extent or another, also for civil society and for the human element of the Church.

Man’s responsibility to lead and govern comes with the obligation to lead sacrificially and for the good of those for whom God made him responsible.

Part 2

Man must Fulfill the Role for which God Created Him

We saw earlier that God’s order in creation is most perfect and that God made the most perfect possible universe.  Part of the perfection of this order is God creating men to have the authority and the responsibility of unselfishly protecting, guiding, and caring for those whom God put under their charge (their wives, children, and, perhaps, others).

Thus, we see that men are more to blame for the evil of the feminism that we see all around us.  Men are really the evil “fathers” of feminism and are more responsible for the feminist revolution than women are. 

Because man is the head of woman, it is principally man’s failure in his role and duty of manhood that gives rise to feminism.

Man’s failures of his responsibilities are of two types:

1.    He sometimes fails because he is irresponsible and lazy.  This results in him failing to be selfless and diligent in expending himself to rule, to guide, and to promote the welfare of those under his care – and to do his duty even when he does not feel like doing so. 

2.    A man sometimes fails because he is selfish and predatory.  This results in him abusing the authority that God gave him by using it for his own self-interest and advantage, instead of for the interests of those under his care.

We will look at each of these failures in turn.

Man’s Failure to do His Duty because He is Irresponsible or Lazy

A man is not only responsible for governing himself, but also for the proper order in the other members of his family (and of society to the extent part of it is under his care). 

A man commits this type of failure when he does not want to correct or guide someone who needs it and for whom he is responsible.  Although this failure can be a mortal sin, it is not as grave a sin as the second type of failure mentioned above (viz., using his authority to aggrandize himself).

Men are most to blame for disorder in their families and similarly are most to blame for disorder in society.  If we had more true men, then feminism would come to an end, and society would have more true women. 

A man who is not so evil as to promote the feminist revolution, is still to blame if he fails in his duty to diligently do his part to lead women and all of society to reject feminism (as well as other evils).  Part of a man’s duty is to govern and guide his own wife.  By failing to do this, he is derelict in his duties like a king who does not rule his kingdom because he wants to devote all his time to gambling, or the chase (e.g., foxes), or some other pastime. 

Here is how St. John Chrysostom taught this truth (preaching to the men of his congregation):

Govern your wife, and thus will the whole house be in harmony.  Hear what St. Paul says. ‘And if they [wives] would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home’ [1 Cor. 14:35].[1]

We see here that St. John Chrysostom is reminding men that they must govern their wives so that the home and family are orderly and harmonious. 

Of course, it is not only a man’s wife that he must guide but also anyone else for whom he is responsible – most commonly his children.  We see an example of this duty being breached in the first book of Kings, where God says concerning Heli:

I will judge his house for ever, for iniquity, because he knew that his sons did wickedly, and did not chastise them.

1 Kings, 3:13 (emphasis added).

Besides a man’s responsibility for his wife and children, he might have various responsibilities for leading society (or part of society) in some other way.  He must use his authority and carefully fulfill his responsibility in order for society to be orderly and harmonious.  This is why Pope St. Pius X admonished men that:

In our days more than ever, the greatest strength of evil men is the cowardice and weakness of those who are good.[2]

When men fail to fulfill their duties to their families or to society, – and most men are failing in our times – it causes chaos and strife in society.  So, it is plain that men are most to blame for the problems in society that we see all around us.

The Second Way a Man can Fail in His Duty to Care for those in his Charge is by being Selfish and Predatory.

In the Charles Dickens novel, Nicholas Nickleby, there is a memorable example of a man using his authority for his own selfish advantage.  This novel depicts an English country schoolmaster, Squeers, who uses his authority over his students for his own advantage, instead of selflessly seeking to benefit his students, as he should have.  Below, Schoolmaster Squeers explains to his new assistant schoolmaster, Nicholas Nickleby, how he “teaches” his students:

‘This is the first class in English spelling and philosophy, Nickleby,’ said Squeers, beckoning Nicholas to stand beside him.  ‘We’ll get up a Latin one, and hand that over to you.  Now, then, where’s the first boy?’

‘Please, sir, he’s cleaning the back-parlor window,’ said the temporary head of the philosophical class.

‘So he is, to be sure,’ rejoined Squeers.  ‘We go upon the practical mode of teaching, Nickleby; the regular education system. C-l-e-a-n, clean, verb active, to make bright, to scour.  W-i-n, win, d-e-r, der, winder, a casement.  When the boy knows this out of book, he goes and does it. It’s just the same principle as the use of the globes. Where’s the second boy?’

‘Please, sir, he’s weeding the garden,’ replied a small voice.

‘To be sure,’ said Squeers, by no means disconcerted.  ‘So he is.  B-o-t, bot, t-i-n, tin, bottin, n-e-y, ney, bottinney, noun substantive, a knowledge of plants.  When he has learned that bottinney means a knowledge of plants, he goes and knows ‘em. Thats our system, Nickleby: what do you think of it?’

‘It’s very useful one, at any rate,’ answered Nicholas.

‘I believe you,’ rejoined Squeers, not remarking the emphasis of his usher. ‘Third boy, what’s horse?’

A beast, sir,’ replied the boy.

‘So it is,’ said Squeers.

‘Ain’t it, Nickleby?’

‘I believe there is no doubt of that, sir,’ answered Nicholas.

‘Of course there isn’t,’ said Squeers.  ‘A horse is a quadruped, and quadruped’s Latin for beast, as everybody that’s gone through the grammar knows, or else where’s the use of having grammars at all?’

‘Where, indeed!’ said Nicholas abstractedly.

‘As you’re perfect in that,’ resumed Squeers, turning to the boy, ‘go and look after MY horse, and rub him down well, or I’ll rub you down.  The rest of the class go and draw water up, till somebody tells you to leave off, for it’s washing-day tomorrow, and they want the coppers filled.’[3]

This example, of course, is an appalling caricature of a man abusing his authority.  Squeers is in charge but his authority is for the good of his students, in order to teach them and to develop their minds.  Instead, he seeks only his own advantage and not their good.

This is like the importance of a judge using his authority for the sake of justice.  He might not render judgment in the way desired by those whose case is before him.  But he must not render judgment in a self-interested way (e.g., according to who pays him the largest bribes, or by inflicting harm on someone because of hatred rather than justice).

Similarly, God made a man to be in charge of his family (and, sometimes, in charge of others too).  But He gave this authority for the good of those he governs – not to be used selfishly.

So, the authority a man has over his family requires their obedience to his decisions.  This is why St. Paul commanded women:

Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord.

Ephesians, 5:22

But a man must use his God-given authority for the good of those under his care.  St. Paul tells men how they must use their authority, namely sacrificially, for the good of their wives, not for their own selfish advantage:

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered Himself up for it.

Ephesians, 5:25 (emphasis added).

When a man uses his authority for his own selfish advantage, using the levers of his power and authority to aggrandize himself, this is an abuse. 

Although a man must govern for the good of those under his care, that does not necessarily mean exercising his authority according to their preferences.  So, e.g., if a school boy told his teacher that learning to read was too hard and begged to be allowed to play during reading class, the teacher would be required to exercise his authority to have the boy learn to read.

The Proper Order: Manly Men and Womanly Women

Right-thinking people of both sexes want men to be manly men and not act like women.[4]  Thus, the most perfect man – viz., Our Lord – is the manliest of men.  St. Gregory Nazianzen, Doctor of the Church, stated the truth of Our Lord’s Manhood:

There is in Him [i.e., Christ] nothing womanly, nothing unmanly.[5]

Men must be clear-thinking, strong of will, virtuous, and strong of body, to the best of their efforts.  When a man’s body fails him due to disease or age, he must continue in virtue, in the clarity of thought, in the strength of will (and body) to the best of his ability.  The manliest thing a man can do is control himself and this is his first responsibility at any age.

To take a parallel example, just as right-thinking persons of both sexes want men to be manly, so in the same way, all right-thinking citizens want policemen to have and to exercise their authority in a manly way.  Similarly, they want policemen to be strong of body and forceful (so they can do their duty to enforce the law). 

Of course, if that policeman unjustly takes a woman’s purse (for example), this is wrong whether that policeman took her purse by abusing his authority (e.g., by ordering her to give him her purse) or by abusing his strength to take her purse because he is stronger than she is. 

The problem is not that policemen are strong and have authority.  They must have strength and authority to do their job well!  The problem would be if they abuse that strength or authority.  Such abuse does not change the fact that policemen should have manly authority and strength.  But if they abuse these things, then they are bad, are unworthy of their position, and are deserving of punishment.

When policemen abuse their authority or strength, this shows they are poor-excuses for policemen, just like a man is a poor-excuse for a man (i.e., unmanly) if he is a bully. 

The Poisonous Lies That Leftists Call “Toxic Masculinity”

As we saw above, God made men to be manly.  This is obviously true since God made creation perfect and He made men to be men, not women.  But how does this fit with the leftists’ continual condemnation of so-called “toxic masculinity”?

Here is one modern dictionary which parrots the leftist position and defines “toxic masculinity” as follows:

A cultural concept of manliness that glorifies stoicism, strength, virility, and dominance, and that is socially maladaptive or harmful to mental health[6]

Similarly, the leftists say things like this:

Traditional masculinity – marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance, and aggression – is, on the whole, harmful.[7]

The leftists add things like this:

Achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence, … these standards are damaging to mental and physical health.[8]

But God made men to be like men because that is exactly how He wants them to be, viz., manly.  The leftists say that men should stop being men and should start being like women.  For example, leftists say things like this:

To the extent that any vision of “nontoxic” masculinity is proposed, it ends up sounding more like stereotypical femininity than anything else: Guys should learn to be more sensitive, quiet and socially apt ….[9]

But God intended that men have exactly the traits of a man.  God intends a man to be strong, clear-thinking, organized, sacrificial, goal-oriented, virtuous, and dedicated to using his manhood for the work God gave to him.  A man must use his manhood to serve God and to guide and to care for those that God put under his charge.

It is certainly not manly – but rather is selfish and disgusting – for man to use his manhood to “walk all over everyone else” for his own selfish interests and to grab from them whatever he desires.  God made a man stronger to protect those who are weaker, not to abuse his strength to take advantage of them. 

This is just like the example we gave above of the policeman.  He should be a man of authority and strength but should use these for the good of those over whom he has authority.

In fact, a man who uses his greater strength of mind and body as well as his authority, for his own self-interest – to selfishly grab pleasures and wealth without regard to truth, justice, purity, and to God’s law, is a poor excuse for a man, since he does not follow his reason, which directs him to live according to virtue and not according to sin. 

A man should live according to reason.  But to live for himself alone is greatly unreasonable.  Such a man’s life of sin is most disordered and shows that such a man is really a slave to his passions and is dominated by vice. 

So, the leftists fail to make the necessary (and obvious) distinction.  The traits of manhood are good, important, and are made by God (just as are the traits of womanhood).  But a man can use those traits well, as God intends, or he can abuse them to commit sin and to abuse those under his care.  This is like the fact that a hammer is good but can be abused, e.g., if it were used as a weapon in a robbery.

So, it is not virility, strength, or dominance themselves that are “toxic”, only the way that those traits are sometimes abused.  If men are not virile and strong in character, they are not fully men, after all.

Virtuous and manly men are society’s essential protectors, guides, and managers.  Human society needs traits like these for its very preservation.  By contrast, a bad and vicious man:

➢  uses his God-given protective abilities as an armed robber, a serial killer, etc.; 

➢  uses his God-given guiding ability to guide people toward his own selfish interests; and

 

➢  uses his God-given managing ability to direct persons or society to his selfish and demonic advantage.

So, what we need to do is promote true Catholicism, holiness, and virtue so that masculinity (which is a work of God) is used for the good.[10]  And plainly, man being the way God intends him to be, viz., a virtuous and manly man, is necessary for his happiness and his success in life.  This is the opposite of the leftist lie that man being this way would be “damaging to mental and physical health”.[11]

Even most men who consider themselves “Traditional Catholic” are weak because they are products of the society in which they live.  Most men nowadays are soft and habituated to a life of ease, pleasure, and comfort.

A Man’s Duty to Learn to Be Manly and to Teach His Sons to be Manly Men

If any man were to find himself unprepared for his role in life, he must diligently prepare himself by effort, training, and practice – better late than never!  This is analogous to the duty of a woman if she is not prepared for the role for which God created her.  She must diligently learn and prepare herself when she comes to understand her duty.

A crucial part of the man’s selfless duty towards his family is his obligation to raise his sons to be able to perform well this role for which God created them.  In the years before a boy or young man has entered into the vocation to which God will call him, he is being raised in a family in which he is “apprenticed” in the “school” of manliness, especially being trained by his father.

Men’s Duty to be Paternal and Gentlemanly

So, we see that God’s Plan answers all of society’s problems.  That is, the Catholic life (with every person fulfilling his God-given responsibilities) is the answer to all of society’s ills and so we should live this Catholic life fully!

In this, we see the “recipe” for happiness: fulfilling our duties of state according to God’s Plan – viz., men living and acting their traditional and natural role as men, in the way God made them.  And in a complementary way, women acting in their traditional and natural role as women, living the womanly life that God made them to live.

As our world gets more and more irrational and absurd (as well as more pagan and immoral), we see the answer to this crisis all around us is that our future is our past (viz., Catholic Tradition), as Pope St. Pius X used to remind us:

The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.[12]

But the devil apes this genuine Catholic solution causing the strife of his own counterfeit “solutions”.  For example:

➢  Instead of a man’s duty to selflessly care and govern his family, the devil promotes feminism and the “women’s equality” movement, in which women battle for their supposed “rights” and they declare they don’t need to be under the care of their husbands; and 

➢  Instead of an employer acting as a father to his employees, acting for their good, the devil promotes the false “solution” of employees battling for their supposed rights as directed by Marxist ideology. 

Because of Original Sin, men (and women) don’t always live up to their vocations and responsibilities.  But men should show respect for women and, more than that, they should honor women, cherish them, and be chivalrous.  God gave women into the care of their men.  This is the true, natural, and Catholic way of life.  

Men should show this chivalry in many ways, large and small, e.g., changing a flat tire for a woman motorist at the side of the road, opening a door for a woman (although she is capable of opening a door herself), giving her his seat on a crowded train, offering to help her carry her heavy packages, even when she is capable of lifting them herself, etc.

Men should be courteous to women, charitable, respectful, polite, attentive, considerate, patient, thoughtful, obliging, listening well, not failing to listen because they are formulating a new comment while a woman is talking.

God made men to compete with men.  God made women to be man’s helpmate, not his competitor.  That is one reason why the Catholic Church overcame paganism to instill into a man to be a gentleman and to be gallant toward women. 

Women and girls have their own role and dignity in God’s Plan.  God did not put them on earth merely for men’s selfishness (any more than men are on earth only for women’s selfishness).  Rather, God made women to collaborate with men in the work God intends them to accomplish, in the roles for which God created them in the family.[13]

Men should treat all women as images of Our Lady.

The weightiest lesson of all comes from the law to love our neighbors as ourselves, which St. Paul applies to women (wives) in particular:

Thus, ought husbands also to love their wives as their own bodies. Who loveth his wife, loveth himself, for no one ever hated one’s own flesh (Eph. 5:28-29).

The Catholic Church has ever been the leaven which fosters the dignity of women.  This is what the Catholic Church has to say in the context of the family:

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it.

Ephesians 5:25. 

This means that, as Christ gave His Life for His Church, a husband should give/devote his life to his wife and to her true good.

Our Lord teaches us the generosity we should have for each other, and husbands for their wives: “Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”  St. John’s Gospel, 15:31.  Husbands should remember that their wives should be their best friends.

A man who loves much does not “count the cost” and he gladly sacrifices everything for his friend (especially his wife and children):

If a man should give all the substance of his house for love, he shall despise it as nothing.

Canticle of Canticles, 8:7.

We should take to heart also, as regards the women in our midst (and men, too), what our Holy Redeemer taught us:

As ye would that others should treat you, so do ye likewise to them.  …  So be compassionate as your Father also hath compassion.  Judge ye not, and ye shall not be judged.  Condemn ye not, and ye shall not be condemned.  Forgive ye, and ye shall be forgiven.  Give ye, and it shall be given unto you.  They shall give into your bosom good measure, pressed down and shaken together and overflowing.  For it shall be meted unto you again with the same measure wherewith ye have meted.

St. Luke’s Gospel, 12:31, 36-38.

 
Conclusion

God made man to be manly, to selflessly use his greater strength of mind and body for the good of those that God has placed under his care. 

Let men be manly and gentlemanly!

Catholic Candle note: In our corrupt times, men have “forgotten” how to be men, just as women have “forgotten” how to be women.  The article below is a beginning of a “reminder” and examination of conscience for men, regarding what God expects of them. 

In a way, the article below is a “companion” article to these articles for women:

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

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

 

There is a spiritual and moral crisis we see all around us in civil society and in the human element of the Church.  All other problems, such as crime, dysfunctional families, a broken education system, disastrous economy, etc., flow from this.

One way to assess the root cause of all of these problems is that they are caused by men, much more than by women or children.  If men did not fail to be true men, these problems would not have occurred in society or in the human element of the Church.  Further, if men did not fail to be true men, there would not be the big problems that also exist in women and children.

Men are more responsible because of the leadership role God gave to them as part of His Providential plan, and also because He made them the protectors, defenders, and advisors of the rest of society. 

Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas explains this truth:

Men are wiser and more discerning and not so readily deceived as women are.  …  Man is the head and counselor of the woman.[1]

So, men have failed themselves as well as failed the women and children by allowing society and the Church’s human element to become so corrupt.

St. John Chrysostom denounced men who are like this, who are so weak as to not only fail to lead their wives, but to be led by them.  Here are his words, speaking to men:

You are the head of your wife, and she has been created for your sake; but you have inverted the proper order; not only have you failed to keep her on the straight and narrow but you have been dragged down with her, and whereas the rest of the body should follow the head, the contrary has in fact occurred, the head following the rest of the body, turning things upside down.[2]

There is a secular proverb which points out the same greater responsibility of the men for what happens in society (and in the human element of the Church).  It shows that men are more blamable than women or children for corrupt times:

Weak men make hard times.  Hard times make strong men.  Strong men make good times.  Good times make weak men.

In other words, men who are soft and self-indulgent cause bad times, i.e., a deterioration in society.  Such bad times test and toughen men’s character, pushing them to be virtuous and manly (as they always should be).  Virtuous and manly men cause society to become more peaceful, prosperous, and virtuous.  Peaceful and prosperous times cause men to become weaker and more self-indulgent.

Doctor of the Church, St. Hilary of Poitiers, taught the truth that peaceful and easy times tend to weaken a person’s virtue.  Here is how St. Hilary teaches this truth, focusing on the Virtue of Faith:

When our Faith is attacked, it increases.  Therefore, in dangers, our Faith is secure; in security, our Faith is in danger.[3]

Another common proverb points to this same truth, in a general, secular way:

From blue collar, to white collar, to blue collar in three generations.

This means that a man in difficult circumstances, who uses determination, sacrifice, and hard work, causes his sons to have education and opportunities that he (their father) did not have.  This results in greater affluence and ease for these sons and for their own families.  Such affluence and ease tend to cause a softness and self-indulgence in the children of those families.  Thus, their characters are weaker than their grandfather’s – undermining what he tried to instill into his descendants. 

So, we see that men’s failures are due to their becoming soft, unmanly, and self-indulgent, as commonly happens when times get easy and everything is peaceful.

Although God created men to lead their families and to lead society, the feminists want men to be led by women.  Pope St. Pius X fought the earlier part of the same satanic feminism.  Here is one way he warned against a variation of this evil:

Women in war or parliament are outside their proper sphere, and their position there would be the desperation and ruin of society ….[4]

These words of Pope St. Pius X echo the principle set forth by the prophet Isaias, who measured the extent of the perversity in Israel, by saying:

As for my people, their oppressors have stripped them, and women have ruled over them.

Isaias, 3:12.

St. Paul shows that God created men – not women – to be the leaders of society.  Here is one way he infallibly declares this truth:

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

1 Corinthians, 11:3.

St. Paul’s analogy here is that, just as the head of a physical human body is its source of direction, so likewise, God made man to direct woman.

Further, a woman is not the head of her own family.  She must obey her husband.  St. Paul taught: “Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord”.  Ephesians, 5:22.

As perverse as it would be for a woman to be head of her family and to rule over her husband, how much more perverse it would be for a woman to be the ruler of a country and have authority over all of the men of the country!

This authority of man over woman is not only part of the revealed Divine Law and the teaching of the Church, but it is also part of Natural Law.  St. Thomas Aquinas shows this when he cites St. Paul (regarding the Divinely Revealed Law on this issue) and then cites the great philosopher Aristotle regarding this same principle in the Natural Law.  Here are St. Thomas’ words:

According to the Apostle [1 Tim. 2:11; Titus 2:5], woman is in a state of subjection: wherefore she can have no spiritual jurisdiction, since the Philosopher [i.e., Aristotle] also says (Ethic. viii) that it is a corruption of public life when the government comes into the hands of a woman.[5]

We see the “tail” of the devil in feminism.[6]  Satan and his servants hate God and they hate the Natural Law which He created.  They hate His creation and in particular how God created manhood and womanhood.

The devil seeks to destroy womanhood through the evil of feminism and he seeks to corrupt women by twisting them into an unnatural equality[7] with men and into being unwomanly caricatures of men. 

Similarly, Satan and his tools are trying to destroy men and their manhood.  The devil tries to make men unmanly, soft, emotional, and self-indulgent.  He tries to make men into unmanly caricatures of women.

We know that Our Lord is especially the model for all men (just as Our Lady is especially the model for all women).  The magnificent St. Gregory Nazianzen, Doctor of the Church, taught us one aspect of Our Lord’s example to men.  He said:

There is in Him [i.e., Christ] nothing womanly, nothing unmanly.[8]

We see from St. Gregory Nazianzen’s wise words that it is a mark of perfection for a man to be a manly man and to be in no way womanly. 

Leftists Portray Men as Helpless and as Needing Women to Show Them How Men Should Act and How Men Can Avoid Being Failures.

The lies and perversions promoted by the leftists are everywhere.  The leftists twist manhood “upside down”, saying that women should teach men how to be men.  Leftists say that “men are in crisis”.[9]  They declare that “men are lost”.[10]  For example, the leftists promote a rabid feminist (Christine Emba) to give men (as the Washington Post says) “a map out of the wilderness”.[11]

Leftists tell men that male traits are harmful.  Here is one way they spew that anti-God poison:

Traditional masculinity – marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance, and aggression – is, on the whole, harmful.[12]

Leftists tell men that men should stop being like men.  Here is one way that they promote that evil idea:

Achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence, … these standards are damaging to mental and physical health.[13]

Leftists tell men that men should be like women.  Here is one way that they say this, attempting to destroy the manhood which was created by God:

To the extent that any vision of “nontoxic” masculinity is proposed, it ends up sounding more like stereotypical femininity than anything else: Guys should learn to be more sensitive, quiet and socially apt ….[14]

So, turning manhood upside down, the leftists say that a man is strong when he is acting like a woman.  Here is one way the leftists state their oxymoronic position:

There’s a lot more of an effort now to broaden the idea of what masculinity really can be, … and how there can be strength in doing some things that ordinarily would be considered feminine – like talking about your feelings or crying in front of others.[15] 

Plainly, we see the wickedness of this leftist attack on Nature.  This is an attack on all of society.  But in particular it is an attack on each man who does not resist and guard himself from becoming a wimpy shadow of a woman, instead of a real man.  By this destruction of what God made him to be, he becomes a failed pile of wreckage and an unhappy freak of Nature. 

General Traits of Men – in Contrast to Women

We must now look at what True Manhood is, as God and Nature intend it to be.  Such manhood is the only way a man can be happy.  It is the only way he can make a success of his life (in all of the important ways) and attain the true goal of his life, which is Eternal Salvation. 

Let us start by considering traits of manhood.  Men have many prominent traits which contrast with the traits of women.  For example, they tend to be:

➢  Larger and stronger in body;[16]

➢  Greater in physical endurance;

➢  Wiser, stronger in mind, with clearer powers of reasoning;[17]

➢  More focused on ideas and abstract matters;

➢  Less focused on persons and their individual differences;

➢  Less focused on details and more focused on the “big picture”;

➢  More focused on a legacy of accomplishment in the world and less focused on his children being his legacy;

➢  More focused on causal reasoning and less on intuition;

➢  Less emotional;

➢  Firmer of will to adhere to resolutions made;

➢  More decisive in making decisions and more prone to stubbornness;

➢  Greater willingness to take risks, as well as more prone to rashness;

➢  Greater self-mastery;

➢  More self-reliant;

➢  Bolder and more courageous;

➢  Less prone to take social cues and less prone to act in a particular way because other people act that way too;

➢  Less concerned about his neighbors’ lives and activities;

➢  Prone to be a leader;

➢  Less compassionate and considerate of the feelings of others;

➢  Less vain and less concerned about his own appearance;

➢  Less prone to be humble;

➢  Less prone to be pious;

➢  Not graceful;

➢  Does not tend to seek to ornament himself and his surroundings and to focus on beauty;

➢  Is more competitive;

➢  More mechanically inclined and is better at designing and operating machinery;

➢  More apt at mathematics, the physical sciences, philosophy, and theology;

➢  Less generous and giving;[18]

➢  Less attentive to manners, etiquette, civility, and decency;

➢  Less home-oriented and more focused outside the home;

➢  More willing to resort to conflict and more prone to use force and violence;

➢  Greater proneness to be protective of others (as well as himself); and

➢  Greater proneness to provide for others (as well as himself).

Our experience shows us that some of these traits are more central to manhood than are other traits.  The most important trait of manliness and man’s key strength is for him to conquer and to control himself. 

In other words, the greatest mark of true manhood and the greatest strength of a man is for him to master his own lower nature.  For this reason, we see that a man who is seething with unruly passions (i.e., not firmly controlled by his reason) is a poor, weak sort of a man.  He is a slave, really.  This is true regardless of how capable he is of conquering others.   

A manly man must not be selfish, nor carried away by his emotions or passions.  He must control himself and always live according to his reason.  That is why a man can be a manly man and can show the truth of manliness even when he is 106 years old and is wheelchair-bound.  Thus, e.g., St. John the Evangelist showed manly firmness and courage when he fearlessly endured being boiled in a cauldron of oil in his later years.

One way the leftists attempt to corrupt manhood is by referring to the “feminine side of a man”.  Further, we see how disgraceful it is for a man to wear pink, wear earrings, or in other ways to blur the differences between the sexes, their roles and actions, and their clothes.

Whereas God made women more emotional, it is a great disgrace for a man to be as emotional as a woman.  This is like the great disgrace it is for a woman to lack a woman’s heart of compassion and generosity.

St. Thomas Aquinas – who is not only the greatest Doctor of the Church but also the greatest man of reason – elaborates on the salient point of manhood, viz., that God created man to be wiser than woman:

The reason for this subjection of woman to man is that the husband is the head of the wife, and the sense of sight is localized in the head — “The eyes of a wise man are in his head” (Eccl. 2:14) – and hence a husband ought to govern his wife as her head.  “The head of the woman is the man” (1 Cor. 11:3).  Then he [viz., St. Paul] brings in his example when he says: as Christ is the Head of the Church.  God “has made Him head over all the Church, which is His Body” (Eph. 1:22-23).  This is not for His own utility, but for that of the Church since He is the Savior of His Body.[19]

Just as Christ is the Head of the Church for the good of the Church, likewise, God made man to be the head of the woman for the good of the woman.  St. Paul shows us this parallelism in these words: 

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the Head of Christ is God.

1 Corinthians, 11:3.

As man has a duty to be wise and guide with his wisdom the woman under his care, so God made parents to be wiser than the children they are raising, so they can guide their children with their wisdom.

God gave the man the attributes of manhood in order to serve Him (viz., God) through his manhood and for the good of the woman and children under his care.  This difference (between men and women) is the wellspring from which chivalry and gentlemanliness arise, since a man is chivalrous and is a gentleman for the good of the woman, using his manhood (including his authority over her) to benefit her.

Let men serve God as manly men, teaching their sons to be real men!  Let women be womanly and show their daughters the example of how to be real women!  In this way, faithful and informed Catholics of both sexes will serve God the way He wants to be served and will be the leaven in society that God created them to be!

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!

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 queer‐affirming network.  When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).[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!

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:

e

➢  And wearing a balloon “miter”:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                        

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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?”

“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