How to fight feminism – Part I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Why are we here today?”

“To make revolution,” they answered.

“What kind of revolution?”

“The Cultural Revolution.”

“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?”

“By destroying the American family!”

“How do we destroy the family?”

“By destroying the American Patriarch.”

“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?”

“By taking away his power!”

“How do we do that?”

“By destroying monogamy!”

“How can we destroy monogamy?”

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

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

We must Fight The Feminists’ Cultural Revolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We Must Fight the Feminists’ Attack On The Family

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

“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?”

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

“By destroying the American family!”

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

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

40. Discredit the family as an institution.  …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We Must Fight the Feminists’ Attack On Patriarchy

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

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

“How do we destroy the family?”

“By destroying the American Patriarch.”[11]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wives, be subject to your husbands.

Colossians, 3:18.

St. Paul further teaches:

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

1 Timothy, 2:11-12.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genesis, 3:17 (emphasis added).

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

To be Continued

 

 



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

transgression.”

 

 

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

Catholic Candle note:

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

Part 1 can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/02/24/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx/

Part 2 can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/03/27/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-ii/   This second part begins at the discussion of the third point of Marx’s implementation of Satan’s eight-point program.  This third point is entitled: “Like Satan, Marx fundamentally sought to divide people and set one group in opposition to another.”

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

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

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

3.    Seeks to divide people;

 

4.    Promotes discontent, envy, and discord;

 

5.    Promotes hatred;

 

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

 

7.    Is full of lies; and

 

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

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


Part 3:

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

(Continuing where we left off last month)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ephesians, 3:14-15.

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

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

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

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

Symbol systems cannot simply be rejected; they must be replaced.  Where there is not any replacement, the mind will revert to familiar structures at times of crisis, bafflement or defeat.  …  A question immediately arises, Is the Goddess simply female power writ large, and if so, why bother with the symbol of Goddess at all?  Or does the symbol refer to a Goddess “out there” who is not reducible to a human potential?[10]

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

The symbolism of the Goddess is not a parallel structure to the symbolism of God the Father.  The Goddess does not rule the world; She is the world ….  The importance of the Goddess symbol for women cannot be over-stressed. The image of the Goddess inspires women to see ourselves as divine, our bodies as sacred, the changing phases of our lives as holy, our aggression as healthy, and our anger as purifying.  Through the Goddess, we can discover our strength, enlighten our minds, own our bodies, and celebrate our emotions.[11]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are strong and loving women;

We will do what must be done,

Changing, feeling, loving, growing,

We will do what must be done.

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

Woman am I, Spirit am I,

I am the infinite within my soul;

I have no beginning and I have no end,

All this I am.[16]

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


Conclusion

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

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

To be continued next month …



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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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


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

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

 

[7]           Ungodly Rage, page 79.

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

[14]         Ungodly Rage, page 20.

 

[15]         Ungodly Rage, page 27.

[16]         Ungodly Rage, page 35.

 

[17]         Ungodly Rage, page 35.

 

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

Catholic Candle note:

Last Month, Catholic Candle began a multi-part examination of how the feminists follow the same program as Satan and Marx.  This article is entitled The Feminist Program is the same as that of Satan and Marx and can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/02/24/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx/

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

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

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

3.    Seeks to divide people;

 

4.    Promotes discontent, envy, and discord;

 

5.    Promotes hatred;

 

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

 

7.    Is full of lies; and

 

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

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

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

(Continuing where we left off last month)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.   Like Satan, Marx promoted hatred.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Modern feminist leaders with Marxist connections

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

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

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

 

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

 

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


Betty Friedan

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


Bella Abzug

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

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


Jane Fonda

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


Shirley Chisholm

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

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

Part III: to be continued next month



[1]           Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[6]           Here is the longer quote from Marx:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[12]         Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.

[14]         Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

In what sense do we reject ethics, reject morality?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[25]         Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.

[26]         Summa Supp., Q.41, a.1.

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catholic Candle note: In past issues, Catholic Candle has examined some of the evils of feminism.  In those articles, we saw how feminism is anarchy in the family.[1]  We saw how feminism contrasts to the magnificent work of a wife and mother that is the vocation and great work for which God created women.[2]  We saw some first-hand accounts of the evils of “women’s empowerment” activities.[3]  Lastly, we saw the gentility and virtuous chivalry that men should show toward women.  Id

In the article below, Catholic Candle begins a multi-part examination of how the feminists follow the same program as Satan and Marx.  Readers might remember how Catholic Candle previously examined how Black Lives Matter (“BLM”) and the so-called “racial justice” movement also follow the program of Satan and Marx.[4]  Although the feminists and BLM both follow this same program, Satan and the leaders of these modern movements apply the principles of this program a little differently, in different circumstances, in order to appeal to different groups.

 

The modern feminist movement has its origin in Satan, especially as Karl Marx interprets and applies Satan’s program.  In this article we examine the connection between the programs of Satan, Marx, and modern feminism.

We start by examining key features of Satan’s program.


Satan’s Program

What are the elements of Satan’s program (war) against God?  It:

 

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

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

3.    Seeks to divide people;

 

4.    Promotes discontent, envy, and discord;

 

5.    Promotes hatred;

 

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

 

7.    Is full of lies; and

 

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

Below, we examine each of these elements of Satan’s program promoting feminism. 


Examining the key features of Satan’s program to promote feminism

1. Satan’s program is anti-God (and anti-worship of God).

A key characteristic of Satan’s program is that it is explicitly against God and the worship of God.  We consider this aspect of Satan’s plan obvious. 

As we see in society around us and also later in this article, the feminists are among Satan’s dupes and/or his willing servants.  Feminists are not all equally “hard core” in their adherence to (or devotion to) feminism.  The most extreme feminists are the most extremely anti-God. 

Those who are “in between” – i.e., more or less feminist – are also correspondingly more or less anti-God.  But no feminists are devoted to and docile to God and to the life He wants them to live. 

Because we are on earth to know, love, and serve God, we see that the satanic strategy of promoting feminism is directly opposed to our Final End and to the reason we are alive.  


2.  Satan’s program emphasizes disobedience and opposition to the authority ordained by God.

All authority comes from God.[5]  Satan’s first act was to declare disobedience against God.  Satan’s motto was – and continues to be – “Non serviam!”

Satan is the original rebel and is the father of all rebels.  Satan’s purpose in his first encounter with a human, Eve, was to foment disobedience in her.  Satan tempted Eve to “go rogue” by disobeying God and by acting in this eternally-serious matter without seeking the guidance of her husband.

As St. Paul teaches:

Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.

Ephesians, 6:12.

In other words, St. Paul knew that Satan is the chief enemy of the human race.  St. Paul labored to fight Satan’s attacks on wives when Satan spurs them to disobey their husbands.  Here are the words of St. Paul’s “counterattack” against Satan:

Wives, be subject to your husbands, as it behoveth in the Lord.

Colossians, 3:18.  

Also, St. Paul instructs wives in obedience in this way:

As the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.

Ephesians, 5:24.

By marking St. Paul’s infallible teaching that wives must obey their husbands, we can see that Satan’s teaching is the opposite, promotes women’s disobedience and rebellion. 


3. Satan’s program seeks to foment division between persons, classes, and groups.

Satan knows that a house divided against itself will not standSt. Marks Gospel, 3:25.  Thus, Satan seeks division in order to weaken and to destroy human society, as he divided the angels of heaven by leading the rebellious angels in opposing God and His good angels.

Satan’s first attack on the human race was not only to foment Eve’s disobedience (see above) but at the same time to destroy the social cohesiveness of the human race. 

Satan is the founder of feminism.  He tempted Eve to reject the order God created, which included her submission to Adam, her husband.  Eve’s disobedience unmoored her from the benefit she would have received from her husband, by his directing her in avoiding sin.  In this way, by Satan being a cause of Eve committing the first human sin, he succeeded in his attempt to get her to reject both the natural and the supernatural order.

Satan attacked Eve first and used her subsequently to conquer Adam.  Without Eve as his tool, Satan would not have succeeded (or at least not as easily) in obtaining victory over Adam and the fall of the whole human race through the fall of its head. 

After Satan’s first victory over the human race, Satan continues to use the same successful strategy (among others) of attacking all women in order to thereby prevail against men too.  We see this in countless ways, e.g., by getting women to dress immodestly, Satan achieves their downfall and also defeats the men, bringing more people to hell by sins of impurity than by any other sin (as Our Lady declared at Fatima).

Satan seeks to destroy the natural and supernatural order God created for the human race including a wife being united with her husband and being taught and directed by him.  To counter these satanic attacks upon women, we see St. Paul warn his flock using these words:

Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith.  But if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home.  For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.

1 Corinthians, 14:34-35.

Here we see Satan’s program through seeing the opposite program of St. Paul.  In fomenting division in the human race, Satan especially seeks to divide those who should be most united: viz., spouses united in the bond of holy matrimony.  Division between a man and his wife is division among those whom God intended to be most united in a lifelong best-friendship. 

Seeking this division between spouses, Satan especially promotes divorce.  Our Lord teaches against Satan’s program of division in these words:

[Spouses] are not two, but one flesh.  What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

St. Matthew’s Gospel, 19:6.

Similarly, St. Paul fought Satan’s demonic program of divorce in these words:

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh.

Ephesians, 5:31.

4. Satan promotes discontent, envy, and discord.

God promotes contentment and harmony.[6]  He teaches us to bear our crosses joyfully out of love for Him.  Satan is the opposite: he promotes discontent wherever he can.[7] 

Satan stirred up discontent in Eve when he told Eve that God does not want her to eat of the forbidden tree because God does not want her to be like God.  Satan told her: “God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof … you shall be as Gods”.  Genesis, 3:5.

In light of Satan’s program, we should expect that he would promote discontent, envy, and discord among his disciples, including the feminists.  So, for example, we should expect him to teach feminists to seek out reasons to be discontented and to ever be on the lookout for how they have been victimized and mistreated by men. 


5. Satan promotes hatred.

As St. John the Evangelist writes, God is love.[8]  Also, God has perfect unity.  He created mankind so that love would be a great source of unity with Him and among men. 

God created mankind so that a woman would be a great source of unity in her home, flowing from her womanliness.  God calls a wife and mother to be the heart of her home and to fill her home with love.

Satan strives to be the contrary of God, as hatred is the contrary of love.[9]  Satan is full of hatred and he promotes hatred through all of his works.  We should expect that Satan would promote hatred in feminists. 

Seeing Satan’s program, we should expect that Satan would teach feminists to hate men.  As part of this hatred, we should expect him to ingrain feminism with unnatural vice – having sinful relationships with other women instead of natural and loving relationships with men (their husbands).  This feminist hatred of men is incompatible with fulfilling their God-given role as lifelong companions – each to her own husband of whom she is (supposed to be) the best friend according to God’s all-wise plan.[10]


6. Satan’s program is result-oriented and appeals to self-interest.

Satan does not act according to immutable principles of the Good and the Reasonable, nor does he encourage others to do so.  Satan’s program is founded upon selfishness.  He does whatever helps him gain an advantage and also encourages his followers to act likewise.

Thus, we should expect that Satan would encourage unprincipled conduct in feminists, e.g., their attacking whoever is against them.  We would expect feminists not to be “pro” woman but “pro” whatever gives them an advantage.  For example, we would expect that, as Satan’s disciples, feminists would viciously attack good women who oppose feminism.

Similarly, with feminists being Satan’s students, we should expect that they would not be “pro” woman and show this by cherishing innocent baby girls and protecting them from abortion and infanticide.  Nor should we expect that feminists would want to protect older women or sick women from euthanasia.  Such protection of the weak and innocent women and girls is incompatible with the program of unprincipled self-interest that they learned from their founder, Satan.

 

7. Satan’s program is full of lies.  Lies are one of his main tools.

Our Lord is the Truth and His disciples abide in the truth.  Satan is the father of lies.  Like any liar, Satan says whatever he thinks will be to his advantage, lying whenever it suits him.  Here are Our Lord’s words about Satan the liar:

You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do.  He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him.  When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own:  for he is a liar, and the father thereof

St. John ‘s Gospel, 8:44 (emphasis added).

Satan wants to do whatever he can to disrupt God’s creation and Providential plan.  Thus, Satan wants to deceive parents into thinking that children should get their own way, doing whatever they want.  Satan would want to deceive parents into thinking that children should be allowed to be the “heads” of the family or that family decisions should be made by a democratic vote (one vote per family member).  This satanic lie would destroy the natural hierarchy in the family. 

 

Satan would want to destroy the natural harmony God intended to exist between the sexes and deceive them into believing that a woman’s role and abilities are the same as man’s – whereas the truth is that God made women admirably suited for the role He gave them in life – just as He made men admirably suited for their own role.[11]  It is very anti-woman (as well as anti-Nature, anti-God, and anti-family) to lie to women, as Satan does, that their role is to simply try to act like men and be as much like a man as they can be. 

 

The truth is that the roles and work of men and women are complementary, not a competition.  God intends the difference and inequality in the creatures He made, as part of the orderliness of creation.[12]  Here is one way that St. Thomas Aquinas teaches this complementariness between the sexes:

 

[I]n other animals, there is communication between male and female only insofar as what was said above, namely only for the procreation of offspring; but in humans, male and female cohabitate not only for the sake of the procreation of children, but also on account of those things that are necessary for human life.  It is immediately apparent that human works that are necessary for life are divided between male and female; such that some are appropriate for the man, such as are to be done outside, and others for the wife, such as sewing and other things that are to be done at home.  Therefore, they are sufficient for one another as far as each brings in his own works for the common good.[13]

 

In Satan’s promotion of lies, the bigger the lie is, the better he likes it.  Thus, we would expect that Satan would promote huge lies (wherever he can) such as “transgender” delusions, i.e., that a man becomes a woman when he “decides” he is one.[14]  Because Satan is a destroyer and an oppressor, he promotes such “transgender” delusions, in order to harm real women (as well as the deluded men), e.g., when those men intrude on women by using the women’s public bathrooms, etc

 

Because feminists are Satan’s disciples, we would expect that the most radical feminists would promote these same “transgender” delusions (when they can), even when this would harm and disadvantage real women, e.g., by allowing these supposed “women” to stay overnight in women’s homeless shelters, allowing these “women” to win all of the trophies and records in women’s sports, etc.

 


8. Satan’s program is against Nature and is anti-Natural Law.

The Natural Law comes from God.  So, Satan has a particular desire to promote conduct against Nature and also the breaking of the Natural Law whenever possible.  Thus, Satan especially seeks people to commit sins which are unnatural.

Satan promotes the murder of innocent babies.  Further, Satan would especially want women to promote abortion because it is more unnatural for them (as compared to men) because God put into women a special maternal instinct to help them in their roles as mothers.

Thus, we would expect those who follow Satan’s program to promote abortion and infanticide.  Although those horrific crimes kill baby girls (as well as baby boys), we would expect that feminist leaders would not want to save those girls because the leader of these feminists is Satan, who wants those baby girls dead.

Among the ways that Satan promotes contention and disharmony, he especially likes divorce not only because God made the relationship of spouses to be the most harmonious of all, but also because divorce is against the indissolubility of marriage even under the Natural Law[15] (as well, of course, as under the Catholic Church’s law).

In Satan’s war against Nature and the Natural Law, he strongly promotes the vice of unnatural impurity.[16]  We would expect that feminist leaders – and a great many of their followers – would also be steeped in unnatural vice themselves as well as promoting this unnatural vice in others.  This is in keeping with their discipleship to Satan.

Satan’s program opposes and blurs the natural distinctions between the sexes.  Here is one way that St. Paul labored to fight Satan’s attacks on Nature’s distinctions between the sexes:

For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn.  But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head.  The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. 

1 Corinthians, 11:6-9.

God gave Moses the following law to combat Satan’s program of blurring Nature’s distinctions between the sexes, with this command:

A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel: for he that doth these things is abominable before God.

Deuteronomy, 22:5.

God gave man the Natural Law “Increase and multiply and fill the earth”.  Genesis, 1:28. 

Because raising her children well is the Great Work of a woman’s life[17], Sacred Scripture infallibly connects that work directly to a woman’s own salvation.  For example, here is one way St. Paul makes that connection:

 

She [viz., a woman] shall be saved through childbearing; if she continues in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.”[18]

Because motherhood is the Great Work of a woman’s life, St. Paul teaches that “younger [women] should marry, bear children, be mistresses of families”.[19]

By contrast, Satan promotes whatever is against Nature and the Natural Law.  Thus, he promotes voluntary sterility in women.  He promotes women rejecting God’s role for them to be wives and mothers.  Instead, Satan promotes the evil feminist “ideal” of careers outside the home. 

In these careers, Satan promotes the world, materialism, power and pride, in causing mothers to leave their God-given full-time homemaking roles to seek careers in the world.[20]


Karl Marx’s Program

Karl Marx adopted the key features of Satan’s program.  Let us examine how Marx promoted and applied Satan’s program.

1.   Like Satan, Marx was fundamentally anti-God and anti-worship of God.

Karl Marx was anti-God.  Marx made a pact with Satan, declaring “with Satan I have struck my deal.”[21]

Not only did Marx choose Satan instead of God, but Marx also opposed and had contempt for religion.  He declared that:

  “Religion … is the opium of the people”.[22]

  “Communism abolishes … all religion.”[23]

  Religion is merely a class tool which the rich use to oppress other people.[24]

Because Marx was so fundamentally anti-God and pro-Satan, it is fitting that Marx used (and Marxists continue to use) the clenched-fist salute – which is clenching their fists and lifting them high.  When a person displays a clenched fist at another person, it is an act indicating defiance.  Thus, Marxists raise their clenched fists heavenward.[25]

Seeing Satan’s and Marx’s rejection of God and the worship of God, we would expect to find this same rejection of God and the worship of God among the feminist leaders because they are disciples of Satan and Marx.  Later in this article, we will see that expectation is fulfilled.


2. Like Satan, Marx was fundamentally rebellious and anti-authority.

Like Satan, Marx was fundamentally a rebel and disobedient.  Like Satan, Marx was filled with revolutionary defiance against God.  In one poetic way in which Marx phrased his own “non serviam” (in imitation of Satan), he declared that if God should bring down Marx’s own throne and bring Marx’s “walls and towers down”, he will nonetheless continue forever his defiant struggle against God, to raise them up again.[26]

Marx strongly promoted not only rebellion against God but also against all civil governments and all authority.  Here is one way Marx declared support for every revolution.

Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. …  The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims.  They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.[27]

As we see, Satan and Marx foment rebellion wherever they can.  Satan – and Marx after him – are founders of the (so-called) “women’s liberation” movement because this is a type of rebellion against the order God created.  We see them enlist women to further their evil, revolutionary goals.  Thus, Satan enlisted Eve into his rebellion in order to more easily succeed in getting Adam to likewise rebel.  Genesis, 3:5.

Similarly, Marx used Satan’s strategy of corrupting the women so they would rebel and thus Marx could more easily enlist the larger number of men to thereby also rebel.  Marx saw the importance of a “feminine ferment” (as he phrased it), i.e., women being in a state of agitation and disorder (as Webster’s Dictionary defines it)[28], in order to succeed in his plan of “forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions[29] (as Marx described his own goal).  Here are Marx’s words about the importance of stirring up women:

“[G]reat progress was evident in the last Congress of the American ‘Labour Union’ in that among other things, it treated working women with complete equality.  While in this respect the English, and still more the gallant French, are burdened with a spirit of narrow-mindedness.  Anybody who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without the feminine ferment. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex (the ugly ones included) [sic].”[30]

Notice Marx is saying that the communists need to stir up women otherwise the Marxist revolution will fail.  Marx is saying that overthrow of all of society is his goal and that stirring up women is one of the tools he is using.  Thus, it is clear that it is not the promotion of women but rather the promotion of revolution, that motivates Marx.

That is why the communists and socialists consider the (so-called) “feminist cause” to be crucial to fomenting revolution in society.  Here is one way that the Marxists connect feminism to their broader goal of revolution:

Women’s issues have never been viewed theoretically as only the concern of women, but were a concern of all revolutionary leaders, male and female.[31]

The Catholic Church (and sound reasoning, as well as common sense) recognize how crucial virtuous women are for a stable, virtuous society.  Thus, the Church and civil society must safeguard women from feminism and other corruption not only for women’s sake but also because this safeguards society. 

In 1917, Pope Benedict XV emphasized this truth, viz., that women do tremendous good or evil for civilization.  Here are his words:

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

 

With the decline in religion, cultured women have lost their piety, also their sense of shame; many, in order to take up occupations ill-befitting their sex, took to imitating men; others abandoned the duties of the house-wife, for which they were fashioned, to cast themselves recklessly into the current of life.[32]

So, it is revealing that Satan, Marx, and the Catholic Church all recognize feminism for what it is: a crucial element of Satan’s (and Marx’s) plan to destroy society and cause a rebellion against God, although Satan and the Marxists desire this destruction and the Church (and good men) oppose it.

Part II: to be continued next month



[5]           Romans, ch.13, vv. 1-2 & 4-5; Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846, §22.

[6]           Here, e.g., is one way in which Sacred Scripture praises and promotes harmony and unity among people:

 

With three things my spirit is pleased, which are approved before God and men: The concord of brethren, and the love of neighbors, and man and wife that agree well together.

 

Ecclesiasticus, 25:1-2.

When soldiers came to St. John the Baptist seeking to learn what God wanted them to do, St. John did not sow discontent but rather told them to “be content with your pay”.  Here are St. John’s words:

And the soldiers also asked him [viz., St. John the Baptist], saying:  And what shall we do?  And he said to them:  Do violence to no man; neither calumniate any man; and be content with your pay.

St. Luke’s Gospel, 3:14 (emphasis added; bracketed words added to show the context).

[7]           Although Satan promotes all discontent, he especially promotes discontent between persons by the deadly sin of envy.  For example, Satan fomented Cain’s envy of (and murder of) his brother, Abel.  Genesis, 4:1-9.

[8]           1 St. John, 4:8.

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


[10]         Here is one way St. Thomas explains this truth:

 

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

 

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

 

God intends the friendship of a husband and wife to be the closest and greatest of all friendships.  Summa Supp., Q.44, a.2, ad 3.  This friendship between man and wife is the closest friendship because it is the only one complementary under the natural law (i.e., between different sexes) and which is a union in the bond of a Sacrament, resulting in the Great Life Work of women/mothers.

[11]         Read more evidence of this truth here: https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/02/the-role-and-work-that-god-gave-to-woman/

 

[13]         St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Ethics, Bk VIII, lect. 12, n.20 [#1271] (emphasis added).

[14]         For a further examination of the “transgender” delusion, read this article: https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/01/the-direct-road-from-apostasy-to-gender-confusion/

 

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

[16]         Combatting Satan’s attack on the Natural Law, St. Paul “counterattacks” by teaching this natural complementariness of man and woman which the devil mocks with the unnatural pairing of two men or two women.  A woman is not made for a woman but for a man, as St. Paul teaches:

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

1 Corinthians, 11:6-9.

[18]         1 Timothy, 2:15.

[19]         1 Timothy, 5:14.

[20]         Our focus should be spiritual.  Our material wants should be few and simple.  Our Lord teaches us:

 

Be not solicitous therefore, saying, What shall we eat:  or what shall we

drink, or wherewith shall we be clothed?  For after all these things do the heathens seek.  For your Father knoweth that you have need of all these things.  Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.

 

St. Matthew’s Gospel, 6:31-33.

 

St. Paul instructs us in the simplicity we need: “But, having food and wherewith to be covered, with these we are content”.  1 Timothy, 6:8.

 

[21]         Here is the longer quote from Marx’s poem, The Fiddler:

 

How so!  I plunge, plunge without fail
My blood-black sabre into your soul.
That art God neither wants nor wists,
It leaps to the brain from Hell’s black mists.

 

Till heart’s bewitched, till senses reel:
With Satan I have struck my deal.
He chalks the signs, beats time for me,
I play the death march fast and free.

 

Emphasis added.  Quoted from Volume I of Marx’s collected works, p. 23 as quoted here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/a-little-known-side-of-karl-marx-his-poetry-and-his-diabolism

 

[22]         Here is the longer quote from Marx:

 

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering.  Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.  It is the opium of the people.

 

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.  To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.  The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

 

Quoted from A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, by Karl Marx (emphasis added).

 

[23]         Here is the longer quote from Marx:

 

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

 

Communist Manifesto, Chapter II (emphasis added).

 

[24]         Here is one way Marx taught this doctrine:

 

In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped.  The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character.  Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.

 

Communist Manifesto, Chapter I (emphasis added).

 

[25]         There are some photos of the Marxist clenched fist salute here:   https://abcnews.go.com/News/history-clenched-fist/story?id=39006994

[26]         Here is the longer quote from Marx:

So, a god has snatched from me my all
In the curse and rack of destiny.
All his worlds are gone beyond recall!
Nothing but revenge is left to me! […]

I shall build my throne high overhead,
Cold, tremendous shall its summit be.
For its bulwark—superstitious dread,
For its Marshall—blackest agony. […]

And the Almighty’s lightning shall rebound
From that massive iron giant.
If he bring my walls and towers down,
Eternity shall raise them up, defiant.  

Volume one of Marx’s collected works, pp. 563–64, as quoted here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/a-little-known-side-of-karl-marx-his-poetry-and-his-diabolism (emphasis added).

Karl Marx also declared: “I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above.”  Quoted here: https://www.azquotes.com/author/9564-Karl_Marx?p=2

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

[28]         Ferment – n.  “A state of unrest : agitation” : “a process of active, often disorderly, development”.  Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.

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

[30]         Karl Marx, Selected Letters: The Personal Correspondence 1844-1877 as quoted https://feminists-against-feminism.tumblr.com/feminism_is_marxian (emphasis added; parenthetical words in the original).


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

There is no limiting for the evil “right to choose”

 

If a mother’s (so-called) “right to choose” means she can choose to kill her baby before he is born, why can’t she choose to kill her baby after he’s born?  How about when her baby is 3 years old?  Or 8?  Where’s the cut-off?  …  Or is there one?

 

The Importance and Need for Stay-At-Home Moms

… to ensure happy families on earth and in heaven.

The importance of having mothers at home was recognized for thousands of years.  It was just common sense.  The fathers earned a living, while the mothers were home tending the home fires.

This was not seriously challenged until World War II, and in a major way, later, by feminism.  (More on this later.)  

It was not easy to pry the American woman out of her home.  Her contributions (as nurse, teacher, cook, baker, cleaner, nurturer, etc.) had always been recognized as essential to the well-being and happiness of the family.  However, the push for women to get the vote in the 1920s was used as a push to get women out of the home.  If it wasn’t very successful then, its time arrived in the ‘40s when World War II called millions of American men to fight for their country.  This must have been the moment the Left had been waiting for: a logical call for American women to replace their husbands in the factories for patriotic reasons.

“Rosie the Riveter” was the symbol.  In posters and billboards everywhere, curls stuck out of her red kerchief while she took her husband’s place on the production line, making it clear she was a female “doing her part.”  And the media loved it.  Even when the war ended, they encouraged women to “seek fulfillment” in their lives, not so subtly suggesting that, of course, they couldn’t expect to find fulfillment as housewives.  Thus, when the men came home from the war, some women weren’t in any hurry to return to the domestic scene, and many were persuaded that it was more exciting to work outside the home.  It was only later that the women were bombarded with the idea that being a housewife was just a job – and that what she wanted was a CAREER.  You had to have a career or you were a dull, boring person who didn’t have this exciting other dimension to you.

But overlooked in the scramble to get a job was the question of who would take her place at home?  Who would take care of the children?  In the beginning, grandma.  However, the advent of the commercial daycare centers greatly reduced having to ask grandma to care for her grandchildren so mom could work outside the home.

(The other side of the coin was the devil’s other solution: to use birth control and have fewer children.  This contributed to the birth rate being way down across the world.)

 

Even so, daycare was not the perfect solution, of course.  Not only does daycare cost so much that it takes a serious bite out of the extra income that mom brings in, but it is notorious for passing on sickness from one child to another.  The problems of the daycare centers have been widely documented.  Some are sub-standard, unsanitary, poorly regulated, and run by incompetents, as well as those that are ably and reasonably proficient.  There was (and is) a huge disparity between them. 

But if the daycare centers provided the illusion that the little ones were adequately cared for, then that seemed to solve the major impediment to mom getting an outside job.

A second major reason that some women left their homes for the job market was the lure of a second paycheck.  Where their parents’ and grandparents’ generations had been willing to wait for those extras like new carpeting, nicer homes, and new cars, most of today’s families were persuaded that they didn’t have to wait to have a boat or fancier vacations if the mother of the family was bringing in a paycheck too.

And as to this paycheck, women were told they should expect to earn the same as men.  This brought things like the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) into being, opening the door for multiple other items on the liberal/feminist agenda.  (Side note for younger readers, perhaps:  The ERA might have sounded like a fair and just amendment, but in reality, it would have caused great havoc with our society, negatively impacting American life in general, and the well-being of women in particular.)

Here are just a few of the ERA’s harmful consequences:

1.    The ERA would be used to overturn all restrictions on abortion;

2.    The ERA would be used to mandate taxpayer funding of elective Medicaid abortions;

3.    The ERA would remove gender designations from bathrooms, locker rooms, jails, and hospital rooms;

4.    The ERA would not give women any more rights than they currently have; and

5.    The ERA would overturn laws and practices that benefit women because they would be viewed as showing preferential treatment to women.

For example:

  Workplace laws that provide special accommodations for expectant mothers;

  State labor laws and guidelines which benefit women who do heavy, manual labor;

  Social Security benefits for stay-at-home mothers based on their spouse’s income; and

  Exemption of women from the military draft and front-line combat.

 Here is the ERA’s history in a nutshell:

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the ERA in 1972, but by law, it had to be ratified by ¾ of the states within seven years in order to be a part of the Constitution of our country.  After untold Conservative efforts to educate people on the dangers of this amendment, the ERA failed to be ratified. 

Unfortunately, the Left was able to get a three-year extension, which (thankfully) ended in 1982 without the required number of states ratifying it.  (Also, five states that had approved it, rescinded their ratification after better understanding the dangers of the proposed amendment.) 

Currently, there is a new push to entice additional states to ratify, with Nevada succumbing in 2017, Illinois in 2018, and Virginia in 2020.) 

End of this brief history lesson. 

Let’s get back to our look at women and how they were enticed out of their homes.  What had been (disastrously) overlooked was how important the mother was to the family and how the family would suffer in her absence.

Yes, this article focuses on the absence of mothers in the home, but for just a moment let us digress and talk briefly about the absence of fathers in the home.  This move was facilitated by a huge change that was thrust on the American ethos with the idea of “single mothers.”  This was a new term that was introduced and repeated to legitimize the idea of women “voluntarily” raising their children by themselves.  The gradual acceptance of the idea of “single mothers” contributed to the assault on marriage by the huge increase of couples temporarily living together without the benefit of marriage.  The removal of the stigma attached to this sinful way of life accomplished the disastrous objective of making it so common that it spread far and wide.

What greatly contributed to the rise of “single mothers” was the destructive welfare system, which increased the monthly check for every baby she bore out of wedlock.  It was a money-maker for some.  (What does that teach the next generation?) 

 

Another evil result of the absence of fathers in the home was that boys lacked a male role model, and thus, many tended to become feminized, (which may contribute to the confusion in so many young minds as to whether they should use the boys’ or the girls’ bathrooms, for example.)

Returning to our subject of women being absent from the home.  Women moved from factory jobs into offices, stores, industries, etc.  Home life suffered.  Many tried to “do it all” but found it impossible, merely a step along the path toward frustration, exhaustion, and ulcers.  Seemingly, common sense would tell you that working at an outside job for 40 hours a week is hardly compatible with a smoothly-running home where laundry is done in a timely manner, beds are changed regularly, nutritious meals are the norm; where children can be listened to, instructed, guided, monitored, etc

(Note to widows or mothers involuntarily in circumstances where they are doing the job by themselves: You are not included in this disparagement.  The valiant job you find yourselves required to do needs no explanation or justification.) 

However, it might be instructive to consider some of the possible consequences of women taking jobs outside the home:

1.    As mentioned above, the cost of hiring a sitter or paying for daycare is formidable.  It swallows a big chunk of that extra paycheck;

2.    There is little or no supervision of the children after school.  This can’t be a good thing.  The children become part of that sad world of Latchkey Children coming home to an empty house;

3.    Second car expenses must be figured into any financial cost;

4.    More money spent on more clothes for the women;

5.    Rushed meals, in many cases more expensive meals, thrown-together with increased fast food elements and convenience foods; not particularly healthy meals;

6.    The time crunch leaves little or no time for problem-solving family discussions around the dinner table (where problems often are first recognized and resolved);

7.    Guilt at spending less and less time with the children.  (There’s always so much to do she doesn’t have time to sit and find out how things are going in their lives, at school, in the neighborhood, etc.)  This is also where some strange idea that the student picked up might come to light and be explored, explained, and debunked, if necessary.

8.    It often precipitates arguments about whose job it is to (fill in the blank here, e.g., empty the dishwasher, throw the next load in, make the lunches);

9.    Frequently can’t scrutinize the children’s friends;

10. Often hasn’t the time to follow up on whether homework is finished or chores completed;

11. Discipline usually suffers;

12. No time for a kneel-down family rosary; and

13. Impossible to monitor children’s time with entertainment, as well as a tendency toward laxity in using entertainment such as TV, video games, social media, or electronic devices.

 Now, if you are a traditional Catholic home-schooling family, you may be way ahead of the game because you may not have to worry about most, if not all, of those 13 problem areas listed above.  For example, you may not have a TV.  And the home-schooling family tends to have a closer eye on who their children are playing with. 

And the children don’t need latchkeys, and a rosary always begins the class day, etc.  But let’s get real, right?  Can being a stay-at-home mother guarantee life will be a bed of roses?  Frankly, no.  But learning what works (and what doesn’t) goes a long way toward making your load easier.  And having the mother in the home is a huge step toward successfully raising and educating your family.

Now it is not pandering to women to point out how indispensable they are in the family.  When I hear someone speak condescendingly about women wasting their time (and talents) changing diapers, and making snarky remarks about the “little woman” baking her chocolate chip cookies, I want to sit her down and explain the facts of domestic life to her.  (Because it’s almost always “working women” – often guilt-filled – who attempt to disparage the stay-at-home mom.)  I want to point out to her that it isn’t vacuuming the house, shopping for groceries, doing the laundry, etc. that make that mother’s job important, essential as those things are.  It’s being there:

·         to comfort a child with a skinned knee;

·         holding her daughter’s hand when she gets her first shot;

·         listening to her son’s grievance against the neighbor kid;

·         taking him to the orthodontist;

·         instructing her daughter how to write a thank you note to her grandmother;

·         listening to her spelling-words;

·         teaching her son his Mass server’s Confiteor;

·         helping her daughter on her first sewing project;

·         guiding her son’s preparation for the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test);

·         etc., etc

And that doesn’t even include the obvious things like: making a child’s special birthday dinner, taking the dog to the vet; and two of the most important things: – recognizing that that kid from the end of the block is up to no good, and guiding her son away from him; and also, welcoming home at the end of the day the father of the family.

To sum up, the mother’s job is one of the most important jobs in the world: to create a happy, God-centered family, to make a home that is a good place to be.  

Booke Review — Ungodly Rage

The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism

By Mrs. Donna Steichen

Ignatius Press, San Francisco ©1991

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

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

 

Long an avid reader of Catholic publications, in the 1980s Steichen became increasingly concerned about the effect of feminism on American Catholicism.[1]

Mrs. Steichen studied religious feminism because, as she explained, “it is the ultimate manifestation” of feminism.[2]  She explained further how she came to write her book, Ungodly Rage:

This book is a report on the subterranean phenomena of religious feminism as observed over more than a dozen years.  My journalistic investigation began, roughly, in 1977, when Rosemary Ruether, in a keynote address to Minnesota’s International Women’s Year (IWY) meeting, identified feminist theology as a species of [Marxist] liberation theology.[3]

Before we survey what Mrs. Steichen discovered in her investigation of religious feminism, let us first see what feminism is on a broader level, which includes secular feminism.  

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “feminism” as a theory of equality:

Feminism: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the

sexes.[4]

Encyclopedia Britannica adds that, in the 1990s, the feminist movement shifted to become more integrated with the racial equality movement and that the (so-called) “third wave” of the feminist movement which began then, redefined women as assertive and powerful:

The third wave [viz., in the 1990s] was much more inclusive of women and girls of color than the first or second waves had been.  …  the third wave redefined women and girls as assertive, powerful …[5]

This version of feminism is the popular, “mass consumption” version.  This is the level in which one encounters it around us every day.

“Rank & file” feminists merely focus on career advantage or in the “empowerment” of not needing to obey their husbands.  The “every day”, ordinary feminists don’t look any deeper than that.  This is like most Masons who don’t look deeper than the shallow appearance of Freemasonry being a career aid, a networking group, a fraternal society and a social club.  So, it easily happens that feminists and Masons seem perfectly normal and good people and that they are friendly and well-intentioned.  But looking deeper, Freemasonry is much more insidious[6] and, based on her years of investigation, Mrs. Steichen explains that the feminist movement is insidious too.

In a 2011 interview, Mrs. Steichen notes that the feminists do not define what feminism is:

Question: What is feminism and how does it operate in our society?

Donna Steichen: That’s a good place to start, because if you notice, feminism is rarely defined.  In particular, the feminists don’t define it.  It is to their advantage not to define it, because most people interpret it as meaning that you’re for women, or that you believe women have a right to be educated or are just as smart as men.

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

Religious feminists, and even secular feminists, want to overthrow God.  The religious feminists have set about replacing the Trinitarian God with a mishmash of New Age spirituality[7], paganism, psychology, and anything that is not structured, that is not traditional, that is not Christianity.[8]

Mrs. Steichen explains the various related levels of feminism in this way:

When feminism is defined as a movement to establish the equality of women, it sounds plausible.  But its fruits betray its real nature.  Even at its least destructive, it is a tactical falsehood, like the Emperor’s new clothes.  It attempts to establish equality between the sexes, which already exists in fact, by forcing everyone to pretend the sexes are identical.  

  • In the family, it would substitute performance contracts and pre-nuptial divorce agreements for the loving donation of all one’s self and goods to a permanent common life.

  • In commerce, it is a divisive form of reverse discrimination.

  • In academia, as academics know, it is a cut-throat politics, unconcerned with fact or scholarly objectivity.  

  • In its ultimate manifestation, in religious feminism, it is an anarchic madness.[9]

Mrs. Steichen explained the connection of this “religious feminism” to the secular versions, in these words:

Religious feminism is the logical extension of secular feminism into the realm of the sacred.  From the beginning its leaders have worked closely with secular and anti-Christian feminists.[10]

Mrs. Steichen remarks that this is the reason the secular feminist Gloria Steinem, in her introduction to the conference “textbook” Goddesses in Every Woman, wrote about the value of the goddess movement.[11]  Mrs. Steichen adds that “the ultimate feminist objective is the obliteration of Christianity.”[12]  Mrs. Steichen explains that even the leaders of the secular feminist movement know that feminism is, at bottom, a revolution against traditional religion.  Mrs. Steichen quotes Gloria Steinem as saying, “Women-Church is the women’s movement.”[13] 

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

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

Mrs. Steichen’s book is full of first-hand accounts of feminist conferences.  Many of her narratives are quite long and detailed.  Here is a representative part of one of her accounts:

At most workshops, there seemed to be a deliberate attempt to draw participants into ritual activities.  No one asked me to leave when I declined, but I began to suspect a concerted effort to enlist everyone present in the conspiracy against the “patriarchal” Church through group dynamics.  All the rituals I witnessed, and most of the “language and imagery” discussed, were drawn from Starhawk’s[15] books.  Clearly, she had become a matriarch of feminist spirituality.[16]  …

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

We are strong and loving women;

We will do what must be done,

Changing, feeling, loving, growing,

We will do what must be done.

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

Woman am I, Spirit am I,

I am the infinite within my soul;

I have no beginning and I have no end,

All this I am.[17] …

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

There were sighs and groans.  … Around the room, bodies obediently swung forward, heads hanging down, like a circle of rag dolls.

She paused. “Open your eyes, and we’ll begin casting the circle of the east.”

The circle of the east lay on the floor like spokes of a wheel, toes together. Crooning, the women rose slowly, waving their arms, then joined hands and moved in and out from the center, like children dancing around a maypole. They made windy, whistling sounds.

“Welcome, spirit of the east”, said Antiga, lighting the first candle. “Blessed be.”  “Blessed be”, the congregation responded.

The circle of the south knelt with foreheads touching the floor, then rose and raised their arms. “Blessed fire”, they intoned. “Fire is transformation, is passion, is beauty, is eternity ….  Come join our fire.”

“Welcome, spirit of the south.  Blessed be.” Antiga lit the second candle.

“Blessed be”, the group replied.

The circle of the west stood, alternately lifting their arms, then folding them in. “Hear me, Aphrodite. . . sunset. . . intuition. . . life giving. . . deep waters, dark waters”, they crooned, swaying.

“Welcome, spirit of the west.  Blessed be.” The third candle was lighted.

“Blessed be.”

The circle of the north knelt, foreheads pressed to the floor. As they began to sway from side to side, they lifted their heads and droned, “Oooom, oooora,” Rising, arms linked, they called out, “North star. Cold. Cold moon dying. Ice. Northern lights.  Blackness. Nothingness.” They howled wordlessly. Then they knelt, pressed their heads to the floor again, raised them and, swaying, chanted over and over ….

“Welcome, spirit of the north. Blessed be”, said Antiga.

“Blessed be.” The last candle was lighted, the large circle reformed.  …

Antiga moved the smoking cauldron to the center of the circle.  Everyone was invited to “cast into the cauldron all that you want to let go of”. Voices called out,  “Patriarchy!” “Anger!” “Fear!” “Oppression!” “Lack of time!” “Military mindset!”  …

We are three witches from different places”, one of the trio said “I resent being classified with satanism!. . . Satanism has nothing whatever to do with women’s religion!  Satanism is a perversion of the white male Catholic religion …”

“Freedom! Freedom!” Kneeling in a circle, the congregation shouted. They pounded on the floor. The shouts became screams, and then a rising roar.[18]

This account, like many of Mrs. Steichen’s eye-witness accounts, demonstrates what she called “feminism’s anti-feminine heart”,[19] because feminism is ultimately a movement of rage and hatred.

Mrs. Steichen recounts how these feminist conferences promote not only feminism and witchcraft (wicca) but also cross-promote unnatural impurity[20], the murder of the innocent[21], extreme environmentalism, the New Age Movement, and many other great evils.  Mrs. Steichen summarized:

Feminism appears to be the bait, moral disintegration the hook and the occult the dark and treacherous sea into which the deluded are towed.[22]

Mrs. Steichen provides the broader picture of feminism and its goals:

The primary target of secular feminism was the traditional family.  …  [Before the 1960s feminist revolution,] one can concede that some men demeaned women’s characteristic role.  Every era has its own imperfections.  But it was a far better society for women and children than the present chaotic one, and few women would not gladly trade their present state to restore it if they could.  The feminists did not call on society to value women’s distinctive contributions properly but instead attempted the impossible task of opposing human nature, denying the differences everywhere revealed in experience.  Feminists won the battle, and women lost. …

[One of the many evils of feminism is that it caused] an indignant masculine backlash against irrational feminist accusations, and litigation is emerging to erode further men’s protective instincts toward women.  

[In summary, Mrs. Steichen explains that] Catholic feminism incorporates all the errors of secular feminism and others more profound.  Its major target is the religious belief that underlies the traditional family and society.[23]

A key part of feminism’s attack on the family, is an attack on patriarchy.  Mrs. Steichen explained this fact:

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,[24] 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.[25]

Mrs. Steichen then beautifully explains the roles of men and women, as God intended 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.  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 ….[26]

Because feminism is, at root, a rebellion, Mrs. Steichen draws a parallel between Eve’s rebellion and modern feminism:

Cunning, the serpent draws Eve into dialogue.  She knows the limits God has set, but she listens as the deceiving voice lures her with a promise of autonomy – the promise that she can be her own God.  When she yields, her disobedience separates her from God and from Adam.  Contemporary Catholic feminists are part of a vivid, and ruinous, reenactment of that ancient tragedy.  Their history strikingly recalls Eve’s susceptibility to false promises, her rebellion against legitimate authority and her presumptuous ambition to make herself “as God”.  Women, it seems, are more prone than men to such fraudulent spiritual enthusiasms.[27]

Mrs. Steichen continues by astutely showing men’s very heavy responsibility for feminism:

Men, in contrast, seem especially tempted to irresponsibility.  Adam chooses to evade the very duties of leadership that Eve covets.  He is not deceived by the serpent, but he eats the forbidden fruit anyway.  [1 Tim 2:13-14]  Perhaps he cannot bear to be separated from his bride by her sin.  Perhaps he is intimidated by the prospect of confronting her.  In either case, the head of the first family disobeys his Creator and betrays his patriarchal obligations with his eyes open.  

We can see parallels to Adam’s sin in men who abdicate their legitimate authority and obligations in the family.  Some use the slogans of feminism to seduce women into [impure] relationships outside of marriage, then coerce them to [kill innocent life]. Some deny their wives motherhood or deprive them of the right to live their maternal vocation with full attention, by driving them into the labor force.  Some welcome any excuse to remain immature and carefree boys by shunting their responsibilities onto their wives.[28]

Mrs. Steichen’s book is an eye-opening peek behind the veil of the most virulent form of feminism, to help us see what is at stake in feminism, for society and for the family.  We recommend this book.

Catholic Candle’s afterword: the Catholic Life is the Answer for all of Society’s Ills!

The virtuous Catholic life is the solution to all our social ills and we should live this Catholic life fully.[29]  The devil apes this genuine Catholic solution through his own counterfeit “solutions”, one of which is feminism and the “women’s equality” movement.  This is like the devil aping genuine Catholic social teachings with the false “solution” of Marxist liberation theology.  

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

Men should show this 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 (or a man) is talking.

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

Girls and women are children of God (as men are too).  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.[30]

We 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 fostering 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.

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 sacrifices gladly 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.


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

[2]
         
Ungodly Rage, page 237.

[3]          Ungodly Rage, page 17 (bracketed explanation added).

[5]          https://www.britannica.com/topic/feminism/The-third-wave-of-feminism (bracketed words added for clarity).

[6]
         
See, e.g., Custodi Di Quella Fede, Encyclical Of Pope Leo XIII (On Freemasonry), 1892.

[7]          See, further information in Ungodly Rage, page 122.

[8]
         Quoted from the May 31, 2011 interview found here:

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

[9]          Ungodly Rage, page 237 (reformatted with bullet points for easier reading; emphasis added).

[10]
         
Ungodly Rage, page 50.

[11]          Ungodly Rage, page 58.

[12]          Ungodly Rage, page 79.

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

[14]          Ungodly Rage, page 20.

[15]          Mrs. Steichen explained: “Born Miriam Simos in St. Paul, Minnesota, Starhawk was given dubious respectability, and introduced into many Catholic settings, by Rev. Matthew Fox, O.P., the founder and director of the Institute for Culture and Creation Spirituality (ICCS).”  Ungodly Rage, page 34.

[16]          Ungodly Rage, page 34.

[17]          Ungodly Rage, page 35.

[18]          Ungodly Rage. pages 36-39.

[19]          Ungodly Rage, page 165

[20]          We use delicate terminology in this article, as Catholics must.  Read the Catholic teaching on this principle here:

https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/sins-caused-by-obscene-speech.html

[21]          We use delicate terminology in this article.

[22]          Ungodly Rage, page 27.

[23]

          Ungodly Rage, p. 225

[24]
         
Atavism is: recurrence of or reversion to a past style, manner, outlook, approach, or activity.  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atavism

[25]          Ungodly Rage, page 226 (bracketed euphemistic words used for delicacy).

[26]          Ungodly Rage, page 227.

[27]
         
Ungodly Rage, page 223.

[28]
         
Ungodly Rage, page 223 (bracketed explanations used for delicacy).

[29]          Here is one way in which Pope St. Pius X taught this truth: “there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion”.  Our Apostolic Mandate, August 25, 1910.

[30]          For an overview of the roles that God gave to women and men, read this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/the-role-that-god-gave-to-woman-and-the-great-work-of-her-life.html

The Direct Road from Apostasy to Gender Confusion

Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Truth:

Jesus saith to him:  I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life.  No man cometh to the Father, but by Me.[1] 

Truth is the mind’s conformity to reality.[2]

Therefore, when a man (or society) rejects Christ and His teaching Church, he is rejecting reality.

But man is a creature of habit.  He is often inconsistent and takes a while to come to see the full consequences of positions he has already accepted (or already rejected).  In other words, when a man rejects reality concerning one truth, he might continue to hold other truths which are inconsistent with his new opinion and it might take him a while to reject the reality of those further, related truths.

Thus, for example, when man rejects the Catholic Church’s authority, he might continue to believe in the Bible’s authority, although the Bible’s authority comes from the Catholic Church.

Similarly, Protestants who rejected the authority of the Catholic Church, did not immediately reject a man’s authority over his wife.  For a time, those Protestants only took rebellion from authority “so far”, and only gradually did their rebellion spread further, to other authority given by God and willed by Him. 

But when a man rejects part of reality, he embarks on a reckless path leading to rejection of other parts of reality.  That is, rejecting a part of reality inevitably leads to rejecting more of reality – the only uncertainty is how long it will take to reject additional, particular parts of reality. 

Thus, the Protestants reject the reality of the Catholic Church’s authority and this leads them down the road to feminism (which is rejecting the reality of a husband’s authority) and also to rejecting the different and unique roles of the sexes.[3] 

Perhaps the Protestants who had first denied the authority of the Catholic Church, had thought it absurd to deny that man is the head of (and authority over) his wife.  This is because, while denying the Church’s authority, the difference between the roles of the sexes is a natural and supernatural truth which remained obvious for a time, even to Protestants.

But when man begins denying reality, the denials continue and become more unhinged from reality.  Man becomes more blinded to what had previously been obvious to him.  Man progressively denies even those things which are according to Nature and to common sense.  For example, man comes to accept that a male can become a female simply by deciding he is a female.

Without God’s help, man does not stop and he cannot stop descending down this destructive road.  Man accepts more and more false ideas he would have previously thought were absurd and impossible to accept.  Just like early apostates from Catholicism would have thought feminism to be absurd, likewise people would have thought it absurd, a few decades ago, that a male would become a female simply by deciding that he is one.

This delusion is not merely a few deranged individuals fooling themselves with this crazy fantasy – like believing they are Napoléon.  Society now accepts this absurdity in public[4] and now viciously attacks those who publicly deny such an obvious delusion.[5]

Similarly, society now accepts that a person can be neither male nor female if he simply decides he is neither.[6]  Society calls this person “non-binary”.  This delusion is a direct attack on Nature and on Sacred Scripture, because:

God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.[7]

People accept these delusions because the rejection of Christ does not end by simply rejecting Him.  He is the Truth and the Author of Truth.  By rejecting Him, man is led to progressively reject more and more aspects of reality.  Nor does he stop with these gender delusions. 

Until man goes back to God and to His Catholic Church – which will happen only through the consecration of Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart – the steady descent of (blind) society will continue. 

There are many additional delusions – even more extreme and more irrational – which are ahead for blind and unrepentant mankind.  What are those future delusions?  Perhaps one of them is society publicly accepting the absurdity that people are cats[8], dogs[9], hippopotamuses[10] and dragons[11] when people decide that they are.  Society has not yet publicly accepted these delusions but they already exist on society’s fringes – like the gender delusions existed only on the fringes until a few decades ago.

Perhaps also, society will publicly accept the delusions of people claiming that they are whatever age they choose for themselves.[12]

We might think society could never be so blind as to accept these delusions.  However, who could ever have predicted a few decades ago, that society would publicly accept and tyrannically insist (as it does now) that you are whatever sex you say you are, and that you can “change” your gender whenever you choose to do so, by changing your mind.

We can glimpse the future in a survey by the Family Policy Institute in Washington which showed that many college students are ready to accept that a person is whatever gender, race or age he claims to be, no matter how absurd the claim is.[13]

This acceptance of delusion in place of reality, is part of God’s punishment for apostate man rejecting Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the Truth. 

Truly:

When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing; they then become capable of believing in anything![14]

Conclusion

The truth is priceless!  Compromising the truth leads to blindness, delusion, and destruction! 

No “advantage” – including being at peace with those around us – is worth the infinite “cost” of compromising.

Pray for the consecration of Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart!

Let us thank God every day for the Traditional Catholic Faith and pray hard to keep it in all its purity! 

Let us profess the Faith, whole and inviolate, until our dying breath!

 



[1]           St. John’s Gospel, 14:6 emphasis added.


[2]           Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest Doctor of the Church, teaches this truth:

 

I answer that, As stated before, truth resides, in its primary aspect, in the intellect. Now since everything is true according as it has the form proper to its nature, the intellect, in so far as it is knowing, must be true, so far as it has the likeness of the thing known, this being its form, as knowing.  For this reason, truth is defined by the conformity of intellect and thing; and hence to know this conformity is to know truth. 

 

Summa, Ia, Q.16, a.2, respondeo, emphasis added.

[5]           See, e.g., these news reports:

 

  Construction workers arrested, fined, fired for laughing at men dressed as women, reported here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/construction-workers-arrested-fined-fired-for-laughing-at-men-dressed-as-women

 

  Protest at public library shows LGBT movement won’t stop until it dominates everything, reported here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/feminist-argues-at-public-library-males-cant-become-female-lgbt-movement-rampages

 

Whatever doubts people have about such delusions are whispered behind closed doors because the public levers of society are against them.  Such doubts always occur when swallowing the devil’s delusions because man has an intellect and retains a nagging doubt whenever he accepts “black as white”, i.e., any lie of the devil.  This gender delusion is like many other lies accepted by society, such as the acceptance of divorce even though people understand that it breaks the couple’s vows on their wedding day that they will be faithful to each other until death.

 

The longer society accepts a particular lie – whether concerning divorce, changing genders or anything else, the more people will be accustomed to taking the lie for granted.

 

[6]           Marriam-Webster Dictionary has designated the word “they” as its word of the year for 2019, in part because this word is “established in the English language” as a word now “used to refer to one person whose gender identity is nonbinary” (i.e., neither male nor female).  https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/word-of-the-year/quid-pro-quo

 

[7]           Genesis, 1:27 (emphasis added).

[13]         https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/watch-college-students-answers-on-gender-and-age-identity-show-just-how-los

 

Interestingly, the only idea these students had much difficulty accepting was the suggestion that the 5’9” tall interviewer was really 6’5” tall, as he told them he was.  Id.

 

[14]         Emphasis added.  This quote is commonly attributed to G.K. Chesterton although we don’t know specifically where it is found in his writings.  https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/44015-when-men-choose-not-to-believe-in-god-they-do