Recalling a 1970s Climate-Change Hoax

Catholic Candle note: The article below looks back upon the global cooling and new ice age scares of the 1970s.

The purpose of this 1970s climate-change hoax and also the one which is now on-going, is a global power-grab.  These climate-change hoaxes aim at destroying what remains of freedom and destroying national sovereignty in the world, to pave the way for a New World Order — i.e., global governance.  Ultimately, this power-grab is anti-Catholic and anti-God.

For more analysis of these “green” frauds to achieve this global power-grab, read this article: https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/22/the-baseless-climate-change/

 

Several members of the Catholic Candle Team lived through the global cooling scare of the 1970s.  That manufactured “crisis” gives a person additional perspective on the present supposed “climate crisis” – a perspective which the younger generation does not have on its own, at least as fully.

During the 1970s, year after year, the liberals and mainstream media screamed out the alarm of impending environmental disaster because of global cooling.  This crisis was (supposedly) certain to come very soon and was (supposedly) backed by “irrefutable” data.  They constantly declared that global cooling was a “fact”.  The policymakers were told that they must act immediately, before it was too late. 

People were told that the new ice age was an existential crisis and that the fate of mankind would be determined during the next small number of years.  People were told that mankind’s survival depended upon everyone working together to fight the global cooling emergency as their highest priority.

The mainstream media, the politicians, and liberal academics solemnly assured the public that, in the new colder climate which is (supposedly) quickly coming, the crops would fail or the crop yields would plunge and that there would be widespread famine.

The global cooling alarmism was every bit as much of a broad societal scare as is the current global warming/climate change boogeyman.  One member of the Catholic Candle Team distinctly remembers that, when he was in elementary school, he read an article at school about the new ice age which (supposedly) was coming.  The article included a drawing aimed at scaring children, depicting a family wearing their winter coats and hats in their living room, with icicles hanging from their noses, their exhalations of breath visible in the room because it was so cold. 

Another such recollection about this global cooling scare is that academics, scientists, politicians, and media figures solemnly declared that people can expect that the new ice age “might” include year-round glaciers which descend from the north deep into the U.S. Midwestern States.  They published scientific-looking maps of the U.S. which showed how far south the “data showed” people could expect the glaciers to travel.

Of course, no year’s weather is identical to any other year’s weather, nor is any century’s weather identical to any other century’s weather.  Natural fluctuations have always occurred and always will occur.  There are long-term cycles and short-term cycles.  That is how God created the world. 

So global cooling alarmism, like other frauds, is a half-truth – which, of course, means it is a lie.  The “half-truth” was that, during the 1970s, the climate was going through the cooling phase of one of those natural cycles.

Here is a U.S. government graph showing the cooling phase that the climate was in then:

Get this U.S. government graph on the government’s website: https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/

Here is another government weather graph showing the same basic point and the same natural temperature cycles which were at a low point in the 1970s, before the subsequent warming part of the cycle:

 

This graph is found on the U.S. government’s website here: https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/

But in the 1970s, this cooling phase of the weather cycle was used dishonestly to perpetuate a hoax that we were entering a new ice age.  From the government, the media, and academia, people heard an incessant drum beat of an alarming global cooling – just like we hear now about global warming/climatechange.

Here is an example of the global cooling alarmism published in 1971 by the Washington Post.[1]  This article – and the entire climate-scare campaign occurring then – promote the opinions of “experts” and “scientists” who are government climate researchers and academics at a prestigious university, who warn about the (supposed) new ice age:

Notice the dire warning about the flooding of the world’s coastal cities (just like the alarmists predict now) and also notice the warning that “huge areas” of the earth will be covered by new glaciers.  The solution the 1970s leftists promoted to respond to this “crisis” is to stop the global cooling by greatly reducing all burning of fossil fuels and also increase the government’s control over people’s lives – so that the government can force us (for our own supposed good) to live in a way contrary to the way we would choose to live.

Here is another example of the global cooling scaremongering in 1970, this time in Boston’s daily newspaper called the Boston Globe[2]:

Notice that the media (in this case, the Boston Globe), cites an “expert” and “scientist” who was a government researcher, who warns that pollution is causing this crisis, resulting in a new ice age.  The “solutions” they always advocated then are the same ones that they also advocate in the present climate fraud, viz., population reduction and to have the government increasingly control people’s lives.  This control forces them to live in a way that will not (supposedly) destroy the world through a climate emergency and for the government to force people to adopt (unwillingly) a “less wasteful standard of living” (as this article phrases it).  Although we are currently further along on the path to a globalist totalitarian government, we were on that same path then.

Notice this “expert’s” absurd prediction that all rivers and streams in the U.S. will dry up.

Below is a “new ice age coming fast” scare from 1974, published by the well-known London daily newspaper, the Guardian[3]:

 

Here is another 1974 article – this one from Time magazine,[4] promoting the scare of “another ice age” and a “global climatic upheaval” with increasing thickness of arctic ice packs and other (supposedly) frightening signs.

 

Here is the New York Times[5] promoting a book by a government climate researcher who is explaining the “consensus of the climatological community” that the world will soon experience a global cooling crisis.  This “consensus” is the same type of fraud as the current “scientific consensus” saying that we are now heading toward the opposite catastrophe (global warming) which will (supposedly) occur in the near future.

Below is another global cooling scare article from the New York Times, based on the data analyzed by an international group of scientists:[6]

Just like today regarding the global warming/climate-change scam, there were countless news articles and “scholarly” studies which declared that the “science is settled”, the “data proves”, and the “experts have reached a consensus” that global cooling is a fact and a new ice age is coming unless we make fighting it our top priority. 

It is easy to ridicule all of these false and absurd predictions from the 1970s – such as that all rivers and streams in the U.S. will dry up and that we will have year-round glaciers in the U.S. Midwest (and in other “huge areas” of the world).

But for anyone who now thinks that he would have scoffed at that glacier nonsense then, here is a good test: does he scoff at the current global warming/climatechange hoax now?  If a person does not discern that the present climate scare is simple nonsense even though “everyone else” believes in it, there is little chance such a person would have discerned this past global cooling scare was a hoax when “everyone else” believed it back then.

We must be thinkers, not gullible sheep following the globalist climate change alarmists! 

 



[1]              We gratefully acknowledge the investigative journalism of Tony Heller, who found this newspaper clipping and posted it at https://realclimatescience.com.  Mr. Heller is the person who added the highlighting.  This newspaper article can also be found at: https://web.archive.org/web/20160805020812/http:/pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/doc/148085303.html

 

[2]               We gratefully acknowledge the investigative journalism of Tony Heller, who found this newspaper clipping and posted it at https://realclimatescience.com.  Mr. Heller is the person who added the highlighting.  This newspaper article can also be found at: https://www.newspapers.com/image/435402308/

[3]               We gratefully acknowledge the investigative journalism of Tony Heller, who found this newspaper clipping and posted it at https://realclimatescience.com.  Mr. Heller is the person who added the highlighting.  This newspaper article can also be found at: https://www.newspapers.com/image/259696938/

[4]               We gratefully acknowledge the investigative journalism of Tony Heller, who found this newspaper clipping and posted it at https://realclimatescience.com.  Mr. Heller is the person who added the highlighting.    This newspaper article can also be found at: magazinehttps://web.archive.org/web/20060812025725/http:/time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html

 or http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0%2C23657%2C944914%2C00.html

[5]               We gratefully acknowledge the investigative journalism of Tony Heller, who found this newspaper clipping and posted it at https://realclimatescience.com.  Mr. Heller is the person who added the highlighting.  This newspaper article can also be found at: https://www.nytimes.com/1976/07/18/archives/the-genesis-strategy-a-chilling-prospect.html

 

[6]               We gratefully acknowledge the investigative journalism of Tony Heller, who found this newspaper clipping and posted it at https://realclimatescience.com.  Mr. Heller is the person who added the highlighting.  This newspaper article can also be found at: https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1978/01/05/issue.html

 

The Blessed Virgin Mary: Anti-Satan, Anti-Marx, and Anti-Feminist

In August 2022, Catholic Candle concluded an examination of the striking manner in which the feminists follow the same eight-point program as Satan and Marx, and how feminism is a tool of Satan and the Marxists to corrupt society and the family.  Following up this examination, we now consider a related truth, viz., Our Lady is the opposite of those evils.

The Blessed Virgin Mary is Anti-Satan, Anti-Marx, and Anti-Feminist

Reflecting back on these recent articles, we see that the feminists contrast so strongly with the Blessed Virgin Mary.  Of all human persons, she is most of all God’s masterpiece.  Our Lady, more than any other creature, is Anti-Satan, Anti-Marx and Anti-Feminist.

There are many ways to see that Our Lady is Anti-Satan.  Here, e.g., is God’s prophesy to Satan how Our Lady will uniquely be (and now, is) anti-Satan: 

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.[1]

Because feminist leaders, especially, are tools of Satan, they hate the Blessed Virgin Mary.  We would (correctly) expect this before we even knew this to be true, simply based on the fact that there is complete enmity between Our Lady and the leader of the feminists, viz., Satan. 

The Blessed Virgin is the Perfect Virgin and Perfect Mother.  Feminists hate her precisely for both of these perfections.  She is the perfection of what they hate and oppose.  Even when they don’t mention her, the feminist opposition to what she stands for, is clear.  Here, for example, are the writing restrictions imposed on the writing staff at the flag ship feminist magazine, Cosmopolitan:

Sue Ellen Browder … former employee at Cosmopolitan, said that when she worked at the magazine, she regularly fabricated stories about fictional women known as the Cosmo Girl.  “I could make her into anything I wanted her to be – a doctor, a lawyer, judge, even a high-priced call girl – but there were two things she could not be if she was going to be glamorous, sophisticated and cool: a virgin or a mother.”[2]

At Cosmopolitan, the “Cosmo Girl” could not be a virgin or a mother because feminists wage war on both virginity and motherhood.  Feminists hate Our Lady because she is the perfection of both.

Further, we see feminist hatred, scorn, and contempt heaped upon the Blessed Virgin Mary.  Feminist leaders even occasionally praise another feminist leader explicitly because she is the opposite of Mary.  For example, when feminist actress and celebrity Elizabeth Taylor died in 2011, American feminist academic Camille Paglia heaped praise upon her, including praising her as the anti-Mary.  Here are her greatest praises of Elizabeth Taylor:

She is Babylonian pagan woman – the goddess Ishtar, the anti-Mary!  My sensibility as a culture critic and as a feminist was deeply formed by her.  She was truly transcultural … and with an open sexuality in that puritanical period, it was so daring!  She picked up one man after another.  To me she represented the ultimate power of the sexual woman.”[3]

There are a great many other scornful statements by feminist leaders insulting Our Lady.  For example, here is how religious feminist leader, Mary Daly, disparages our dear Blessed Mother:

Mary is a “pale derivative symbol disguising the conquered Goddess”, a “flaunting of the tamed Goddess”.  Her role as servant in the Incarnation of God amounts to nothing other than a “rape”.[4]

Secular feminist leader, Simone de Beauvoir, called the Blessed Virgin Mary the “supreme victory of masculinity”, implying that somehow, Our Lady is some tool of a war against women, rather than the dear and compassionate Mother of mankind.[5]

It is not without reason the feminists hate the Blessed Virgin Mary.  As summarized below, she is the opposite of the feminists and of their satanic, Marxist program outlined in the Catholic Candle series from February through August, 2022.  For example:

1.   The feminists and feminism are anti-God. 

Our Lady is completely the opposite.  More than anyone else, she is united to God.  She is the daughter of the Eternal Father, the mother of God the Son and the spouse of the Holy Ghost.  She is the one to whom the Angel Gabriel brought God’s greeting that “the Lord is with thee”.  St. Luke’s Gospel, 1:28.

 

Further, as many feminist leaders know, Our Lady is a necessary help to us in order that we devote ourselves to God and to fighting feminism.


2.   The feminists and feminism are revolutionary and are anti-authority. 

Our Lady is completely the opposite.  More than any other creature, she works for the reign of her Divine Son in all things.  She is the Queen of Heaven.  All revolutions are against her and her Divine Son.  All rejection of true authority is against her universal queenship.

Whereas Satan was the first revolutionary, Our Lady is, more than any other creature, the anti-revolutionary.  In the Garden of Eden, Eve joined Satan’s revolution.  The Blessed Virgin Mary is the New Eve who repaired that evil.

So far was she from revolting against God’s order, she was most perfectly the servant (slave girl) of God, calling herself “the handmaid of the Lord”.  St. Luke’s Gospel, 1:29.

Further, as many feminist leaders know, Our Lady is a necessary help to us in order that we are obedient and serve God, including by fighting feminism.


3.   The feminists and feminism seek to divide people

Our Lady is completely the opposite.  Mary seeks to unite all men in the unity of the Catholic Church.  She strives that as many people as possible be members of her Son’s one Mystical Body. 

 

Mary is our mother and seeks to unite all of us, as her children.  Mary leads us to the virtues, such as charity, mildness, longsuffering, generosity, etc.  By promoting these virtues, Mary uses these virtues to unite people, and to oppose Satan, Marx, and the feminists, who seek to divide people.

Further, as many feminist leaders know, Our Lady is a necessary help to us in order that we live our lives devoted to true charity toward our neighbor, and to fighting feminism.

 

4.   The feminists and feminism promote discontent, envy, and discord. 

Our Lady is the complete opposite.  She is the Comforter of the Afflicted.  (Litany of Loretto).  She is the Mother Most Amiable.  (Litany of Loretto).

She is the Queen of Peace.  (Litany of Loretto).  She is the mother of the Prince of Peace.  Isaiah, 9:6.

In our times, God wills that peace will come upon the world through the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

 

Further, as many feminist leaders know, Our Lady is a necessary help to us in order that we live our lives in the peace of God, completely uniformed to God’s Will in all things, and as implacable opponents of feminism.

5.   The feminists and feminism promote hatred. 

Our Lady is the complete opposite.  She is the Mother of Fair LoveEcclesiasticus, 24:24.

God wills universal devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary because her heart shows the great tenderness of her love.  In our times, God wills that peace will come upon the world through the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (i.e., to her loving heart).

Further, as many feminist leaders know, Our Lady is a necessary help to us in order that we live our lives as examples of, and ambassadors of, charity as well as implacable opponents of feminism.

 

6.   The feminists and feminism are result-oriented and unprincipled, because Satan and Marx neither act according to immutable principles nor encourage their followers to do so. 

Our Lady is the complete opposite.  She is the greatest example of a creature obedient to God.  She is the “handmaid of the Lord”.  She is our model of how to serve God in all things, in the way that pleases Him most.

Mary teaches us all of the virtues and how to live according to the principles of virtue.

Further, as many feminist leaders know, Our Lady is a necessary help to us in order that we direct our lives according to the principles of the Catholic Faith and, including the imperative of being untiring enemies of feminism.

 

 

7.   The feminists and feminism are full of lies

Our Lady is the complete opposite.  Our Lady’s Son is the Eternal Truth. 

In Our Lady, “is all grace of the way and of the truth”.   Ecclesiasticus, 24:24. 

She explains that she has labored “for all that seek out the truth.”  Ecclesiasticus, 24:47.

 

Further, as many feminist leaders know, Our Lady is a necessary help to us in order that we live our lives thirsting for the truth and abiding always in the Truth, and fighting the lies of feminism.

 

8.   The feminists and feminism are anti-Natural Law. 

Our Lady is the complete opposite.  Our Lady loves and promotes the Natural Law because it was created by her Son and is a necessary help to salvation.

Purity is part of the Natural Law, in which reason tells us that we should live and act so as to shun the moral defilements which are so shamelessly promoted by Satan, Marxists, and the feminists.  Our Lady is the Mother Most Pure and Mother Most Chaste, Mother Inviolate, and the Mother Undefiled.  (Litany of Loretto). 

 

The family is the necessary building block of the Church and society, according to the Natural Law.  Our Lady gave us the perfect example of a wife and mother, in the Holy Family.  She perfectly fulfills the Natural Law.

 

Satan, Marxists, and the feminists hate and seek to destroy marriage.  Our Lady had the perfect marriage and is the model of all wives, fulfilling the Natural Law in every way.

 

These examples are only a beginning.  The list is “endless” of the ways in which Our Lady practiced the Natural Law and gave us the perfect example of adherence to the Natural Law.

 

Further, as many feminist leaders know, Our Lady is a necessary help to us in order that we live our lives in complete conformity with the Natural Law and defend it against feminism.


Conclusion:

Our life on earth is a warfare.  We are in the Church Militant!  We are not in the service of Satan.  There is no middle ground.  Are we adopted children of Mary or have we adopted feminism?

We must choose sides!  Are we on God’s side or are we on Satan’s side?

In this time in which God’s enemies are all around us, we must cling closely to our dear Mother Mary, the Anti-Satan, the Anti-Marx, and the Anti-Feminist!



[1]           Genesis, 3:15.

[2]           Quote from The Anti-Mary Exposed by Carrie Gress, St. Benedict Press LLC © 2019, ch. 5, https://onepeterfive.com/attack-blessed-virgin/

[4]           Gyn/Ecology, by Mary Daly, (1978), found here: http://ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/mhauke_maryfem_july05.asp

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

Catholic Candle note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.    Seeks to divide people;

 

4.    Promotes discontent, envy, and discord;

 

5.    Promotes hatred;

 

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

 

7.    Is full of lies; and

 

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

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

 

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

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

B.   They seek to divide people; and

C.   They promote discontent, envy, and discord.

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

Part 6 of this article covers the second-last aspect of how the feminist leaders and feminist principles follow Satan’s and Marx’s program:

Ø  Modern feminist leaders are full of lies.

Part 6 of this article can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/07/26/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-vi/

 

Part 7:

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


(Continuing where we left off last month)

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

The feminists are anti-Natural Law

 

The feminist leaders seek destruction of the family.

The family is an institution of the Natural Law.  The family is the foundation of the Catholic Church as the chief source of bringing into the Church new Catholics and transmitting the true Faith and true Morality from one generation to the next.  The family is also the foundation of a good civil society, handing down to the next generation learning, discipline, morality, and culture.

For these reasons (as we saw in earlier parts of this article), Satan and Marxists hate the family.  Similarly, the feminists hate the family.

For example, secular feminist leader, Kate Millett, made it a routine part of the opening of her “women’s empowerment” meetings that they mention their goal of destroying the family.  Here is part of the chant she used to open these meetings:

“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
By destroying the American family!” they answered.[1]

Similarly, here is how secular feminist leader, Linda Gordon, declared war on the family:

The nuclear family[2] must be destroyed ….  Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.[3]

The feminist leaders promise the destruction of the state (which is an institution belonging to the Natural Law), when they succeed in destroying the family.

All authority comes from God.  The state as such, is an institution which is part of the Natural Law.  God intends that there be a state because He created man as a political animal.[4]  The state, like the Catholic Church, is necessary to complete and to aid the work of the family in achieving its own ends.[5]

It is striking how the feminist leaders even use the same expressions as the Marxists (thereby signaling the affinity between them).  The Marxists/communists promise the withering away of the state when their enemy (the bourgeois class) is destroyed.  Similarly, the feminists promise the withering away of the state when the feminists’ enemy (the patriarchal family) is destroyed. 

For example, here is one way Vladimir Lenin phrased this claim:

The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed.

But the state has not yet completely withered away, since there still remains the safeguarding of “bourgeois law”, which sanctifies [sic!] actual inequality.  For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary.[6]

Using this same Marxist phrasing, secular feminist leader, Germaine Greer, asserted that, after they destroy the enemy (the “patriarchal family”), the state will wither away into a Marxist paradise.  Here are her words:

Women’s liberation, if it abolishes the patriarchal family, will abolish a necessary substructure of the authoritarian state, and once that withers away Marx will have come true willy-nilly, so let’s get on with it.[7]

Again, notice that both the feminists and the Marxists (falsely) promise the end of the state (which is part of the Natural Law) after they destroy their enemy.


The feminist leaders seek destruction of marriage.

Marriage is part of the Natural Law[8] and faithful marriages are necessary for good and stable families.  Thus, the feminist leaders hate marriage.

For example, here is how secular feminist, Sheila Cronin, declared war on marriage:

Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution.  Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.[9]


The feminist leaders seek destruction of women’s God-given maternal instincts and seek to foster in women a hostility (or at least indifference) to babies and children.

God put in women a maternal instinct to love and cherish babies and children.  This instinct is in women to help them fulfill well the great work of their lives, which is the raising of children to become well-adjusted and virtuous adults.[10]

Because feminism seeks to destroy families and marriage, obviously feminists want to entirely root out a woman’s natural inclination to love and cherish babies and children.  Here is how one secular feminist leader declared her own anti-maternal instincts:

I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness ….  Nothing will make me want a baby ….[11]


To effectively root out a woman’s natural maternal instincts and to make her a career woman, the feminist leaders strongly promote a woman murdering her unborn babies.

The extreme opposite of a woman’s natural maternal instinct is for her to murder her own babies.  This further makes a woman more like Satan, who “was a murderer from the beginning.”[12]  When a woman murders her innocent baby at the beginning of his life, she is like Satan and is, in her own way, “a murderer from the beginning”.

Marxists so strongly promote abortion that, in 1920, Communist Russia was the first country in the world to legalize abortion.[13]   Communist Russia offered abortion for free.  Id.

Communist China is the abortion capital of the of the world, with more than 400 million abortions in the forty years beginning in 1971.[14]   China’s murderous assault on innocent babies continues unabated.  Communist China’s murder of its babies is currently at a rate of more than nine million per year.[15]

As horrific as it is for a man to murder a baby, it is even more unnatural for a mother to murder her own baby.  Feminists strongly promote killing not only male babies but also female babies – showing that feminists are lying when they say that they are concerned about protecting women and girls.  In fact, feminists do not object to sex-selection abortions, which disproportionately murder baby girls.[16]


Feminists seek to destroy virtue, especially purity – and especially in women.

Vice – especially impurity – weakens a person’s will and opens wide the door of the soul to a life of further sins of all types.  As we saw earlier, Satan and Marx focused many efforts on corrupting people, especially women.  This is plainly because women are truly guardians of society through their selfless vigilance for the good of their families.  Here is one way Pope Pius XI explained this truth:

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.

 

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

Following Satan’s and Marx’s program, feminists urge everyone, but especially women, to promiscuously follow any urges of their basest appetites.[17]

Secular feminist leader, Kate Millett, included this focus on promoting impurity, in the chants opening their feminist meetings:

“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?” …
By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.[18]

Because feminists are tools of Satan and of the Marxists and because they are not really advocates for women, the feminists also promote and support deluded men who insist they are women (i.e., so-called “transgenderism”).[19]

There are so many other ways in which feminists follow Satan and Marx by being against Nature and the Natural Law.  But these examples suffice to show that truth.


Conclusion of this Entire Article

All feminists are against Nature and are anti-Natural Law.  As shown in earlier parts of this article, the feminists follow Satan’s and the Marxists’ entire evil program.  Thus, all faithful and informed Catholics (and all others who use their intellects as they should) are compelled to conclude that there is no version of feminism that can be reconciled with the Truth and the Good. 

There is no good feminism; there is no Biblical feminism; there is no Catholic feminism; there is no “good feminism.  Feminism is inherently evil because it deliberately contradicts Divine revelation and the Natural Law. 

There can be naïve feminists who are so confused that, perhaps, they are not culpable for the evil in which they participate.  This is like, perhaps, there are naïve and confused Marxists or freemasons.  God will judge their interior, subjective culpability.  However, on the objective level – the level on which we Catholics and all people using their reason – must judge, their work is evil, is anti-God, and promotes Satan.  Let us fight feminism in all of its manifestations!




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

[2]           A “nuclear family” is a married father and mother and their children living family life together.

[4]           A political animal is one who by Nature comes together with his fellows to organize themselves using reason, to perform joint tasks, such as self-defense, building roads, etc.

[5]           Here is how Pope Pius XI explains the necessity of the state as one of the three necessary societies:

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

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

[6]           Vladimir Lenin’s The State and Revolution, section three, which can be found here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm (emphasis and bracketed word added).

[7]           https://www.thoughtco.com/germaine-greer-quotes-3530088 (emphasis added).

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

[9]           The words of Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW (National Organization for Women), https://www.coursehero.com/file/p1sbvhs/Since-marriage-constitutes-slavery-for-women-it-is-clear-that-the-womens/

[11]          Words of secular feminist leader, Amanda Marcotte, March 2014, found here: https://theothermccain.com/2016/11/15/feminists-hate-donald-trump-the-joys-of-happy-fun-victory-week-maga/

[12]         Here are Our Lord’s words about Satan the murderer (speaking to the pharisees):

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).

[16]         India Has Killed 46 Million Girls in Sex-Selection Abortions, Where are the Feminists?  https://www.lifenews.com/2021/12/28/india-has-killed-46-million-girls-in-sex-selection-abortions-where-are-the-feminists/

[17]         Here, e.g., is one way in which the National Organization for Women promotes vile impurity: https://now.org/blog/issue-advisory-asexuality-sexual-empowerment-isnt-for-everyone-and-thats-okay/

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

   
[19]         Here, e.g., is the National Organization for Women promoting gender delusion: 
https://now.org/issues/lgbtq-rights/

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

Catholic Candle note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.    Seeks to divide people;

 

4.    Promotes discontent, envy, and discord;

 

5.    Promotes hatred;

 

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

 

7.    Is full of lies; and

 

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

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

 

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

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

B.   They seek to divide people; and

C.   They promote discontent, envy, and discord.

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Part 6:

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


(Continuing where we left off last month)

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

 

Modern feminist leaders are full of lies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Are liars, saying that divorce empowers women.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Are liars, saying that women are victims of men.

 

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

  Are liars, saying that feminism makes a woman powerful.

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

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

  Are liars, saying that men hate women.

  Are liars, saying that women should be aggressive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Are liars, saying that women should hate men.

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

  Are liars, saying that men oppress women.

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

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

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

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

  Are liars, saying that femininity is weak and shameful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Let us value nothing as much as the truth!



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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Ephesians, 5:22-24.

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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


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

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

 

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


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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Biggest Mistake Politicians Make is Separation of Church and State

 

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

 

This relationship is covered by the following points:

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

A.   Absolute Liberalism;

B.   Qualified Liberalism; and

C.   The Theory of the Regalists.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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



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

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

On Kingship, Bk. 1, c. 15.

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


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

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

Catholic Candle note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.    Seeks to divide people;

 

4.    Promotes discontent, envy, and discord;

 

5.    Promotes hatred;

 

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

 

7.    Is full of lies; and

 

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

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

 

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

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

B.   They seek to divide people; and

C.   They promote discontent, envy, and discord.

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

 


Part 5:


(Continuing where we left off last month)

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

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

 

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

 

1.   Modern feminism and feminist leaders promote hatred.

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

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

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

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

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

Similarly secular feminist leader, Marilyn French said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Summary

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

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

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



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

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

 

[3]           Ungodly Rage, page 165.

 


[8]           Here is part of the chant Kate Millett used to open these meetings:

 

“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,”

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


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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

Catholic Candle note:

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Promotes discontent, envy, and discord;

  1. Promotes hatred;

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

  1. Is full of lies; and

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

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


Part 4


(Continuing where we left off last month)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Why are we here today?” she [i.e., Kate Millett] asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” …
[6]

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

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

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

Ephesians, 5:22-24.


Conclusion of this Part

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be continued next month …


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By
destroying the American Patriarch,”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).

The False Principle of “Diversity and Inclusion”

Catholic Candle note concerning the article below: We see many examples in current society of deemphasizing merit, accomplishment, and virtue, and focusing instead on a person’s status.  For example, in many places in the Western Hemisphere, the traditional holiday dedicated to the great man, Christopher Columbus[1] (October 12th, Columbus Day) was changed to “Indigenous People’s Day”.[2]  This new holiday “honors” native Americans – not for history-changing accomplishments of daring and success, but for happening to live and breathe in the Western Hemisphere.  

One of the ways that the Marxists are weakening society is through pushing “diversity and inclusion”.  That is, instead of individual merit being the criteria for selecting personnel (e.g., in a hiring decision), the decision is made based on how “different” someone is.  This is irrational!  This false principle of “diversity and inclusion” serves two Marxist goals:

  1. to cause disharmony and discontent between groups in society[3]; and
  2. to weaken society’s institutions by causing the hiring and promotion of less-qualified persons because they belong to a favored group.

Below, we examine this evil practice.

However, please note the scope of the article below: it addresses the irrational idea that it is better for an organization to hire people because they are different, e.g., because of their differences in race, their “lifestyles” of unnatural impurity, their delusions that they are “non-binary” (belong to neither gender) or some other difference.

The article below does not address certain other, related issues, such as so-called “affirmative action”, viz., the irrational and unjust practice of showing undeserved favoritism to one member of a group (e.g., a racial group) based on real (or supposed) past mistreatment of an unrelated member of that same group.  A further evil consequence of “affirmative action” is that giving one person undeserved favoritism requires that another person is undeservedly disfavored.

Another related topic not covered in the article below, is how making personnel selection decisions based on “diversity and inclusion” (or “affirmative action”) harms the characters of the persons receiving the advantages.

The False Principle of “Diversity and Inclusion” –

A Favorite Tool of the Marxists

Modern liberal society preaches tolerance, liberty, diversity, and inclusion.  But no one is more intolerant than a liberal who is in control, e.g.:  

  • In the name of tolerance, liberals are intolerant of those who are anti-liberal.  

  • In the name of liberty, liberals are intolerant of those who want to exercise their own liberty to live according to the Traditional Moral Law and who adhere to (and promote) an anti-liberal philosophy.  

  • In the name of diversity, liberals demand uniformity in accepting immoral “lifestyles”.

  • In the name of inclusion, liberals oppress and exclude those who don’t accept perversities against nature and other liberal “dogmas”.

In summary, liberals demand intolerance toward (and exclusion of) those who adhere to the Natural Law and the Traditional Catholic Faith and Morality which built Christendom and Western Civilization.

The preachers of “diversity and inclusion” use deceptive “studies” to promote their false “gospel”.  For example, they (deceptively) purport to correlate a society’s economic resilience with whether that society is “inclusive” of persons living “lifestyles” of unnatural vice.[4]  But their “studies” carefully use selection bias.  That is, the “studies” use cities which are “inclusive” of persons who demand public acceptance of their gross unnatural vice, and compare those cities to other cities such as in Iran, Morocco, Qatar, Indonesia, and Belarus where the government attempts to suppress such wicked conduct.  The result-oriented conclusion asserted by the authors of such “studies” is that cities which are “inclusive” are more economically resilient.  

But such “studies” are deceptive and are designed to fool the intellectually lazy and the gullible.  Those studies largely contrast cities which are located within the economies of the fully-developed Western World where there is a consistent history of peace and the rule of law, with cities located in economically less-developed non-Western countries in unstable parts of the world.

Such “studies” promote gross immorality and serve to (more-fully) fulfill Communist Goals #25 & #-26 (of 45 total goals) as read into the U.S. Congressional Record in 1963:

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

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as normal, natural, and healthy.[5]

Diversity and Inclusion as Broader Tools of the Marxists’ War on Western Civilization

The Marxists make broader use of their evil diversity and inclusion “gospel” beyond their attempt to ruin society by promoting unnatural impurity.

Again, as Pope Pius XI warned, the “preachers of Communism are proficient in exploiting racial antagonisms, political divisions, and oppositions.”[6] 

The Marxists seek to create mutual antagonism between different groups and to deemphasize truth and the common good.[7]  Marxists use diversity and inclusion to promote “identity politics”, i.e., the group to which you belong determines the outcome you receive, rather than your personal merits and ability or your virtuous character.  Under a regime of diversity and inclusion, what matters most is that you belong to a favored group.  So, for example, a person is hired or is promoted to a business, academic, or political position because he (she) is of a “diverse” race or gender.

Of course, this emphasis on “diversity” always seems to go only in one direction: away from white men.  An organization is never attacked or criticized for having such a large number of blacks or women so that “diversity” would involve making extra efforts to hire white men.

Through diversity and inclusion initiatives, Marxists promote self-interest, social disunity, and the disintegration of society.  Such Communist initiatives and goals are exactly the opposite of what good men would do.  As Pope Pius XI teaches, good men should strive to abolish class conflict and produce harmony and cooperation between men – a goal directly opposed to communism’s goal.[8] 

Pope Pius XI adds (in another place) that not only do Communists seek to increase hostility between the groups of society, but they attack and seek to annihilate anyone who seeks harmony between those groups.[9]

Marxists have succeeded in obtaining the Western World’s acceptance of their diversity and inclusion rules.  Western society has largely accepted the credo that a person being part of a favored group is what is necessary to qualify that person for a job, academic opening, or political appointment.  

The truth is that qualification for such jobs, openings, or appointments should be based on the individual’s intellect, talent, and experience.  Qualification for such employment should not be based on diversity and inclusion – that is, based on a person being unlike others who have successfully held that particular job or position in the past.  

Instead, a person’s qualifications should be based on being similar to those who previously exhibited the qualities which have brought success in the position.  Thus, in today’s irrational society, a person is recommended for a job because of being a “diverse individual”.  The recommendation should really go to a person not because of being diverse but rather for having abilities and qualifications similar to prior successful holders of the job or office.


The strength of a family, of a business, or of a nation is in its unity of culture and morals, and in its like-mindedness.

A Family’s Strength.

A family is strong to the extent that its culture, e.g., its music and literature, is the same.  It must have the same language for ready communication with each other.  The family must have the same moral principles and hold in common the same ideas of truth and virtue, in order that their goals are the same, as well as their means of achieving these goals.

A family is strong when it has bonds of friendship and love between its members.  As the proverb states: “charity begins at home”.

A family is strong when its members have a spirit of sacrifice for one another and are willing to place the interests of the whole group and other members of the group above their own interests.

A family needs a strong, self-sacrificing head, clearly and prudently exercising authority.  He must direct his family for the glory of God and the good of the whole family, rather than for his own benefit.


The Strength of a Business (or other Organization).

Like a family, a business is stronger and more unified to the extent that its workers have the same (correct) moral principles and hold in common the same (correct) ideas of truth and virtue, so that their goals are the same as well as their means of achieving these goals.

In our pagan society, it is often stated that a business’s primary goal is to increase the value of the business for the shareholders.  That is false.  Everything we do must first of all serve God.  

The business leader’s most important goal should not be to make money, just as the family leader’s most important goal should not be to increase the financial assets of the family.  

In other words, the members of a business, like the members of a family, should realize that a business is not merely an economic relationship but is a human association with other men also created by God, for His glory and for mutual assistance.

Thus, the primary goal of a business (just like every part of our life) is to serve God.  In the case of a business, the goal is to serve God through the business.

A business’s strength is like a family’s strength.  Like a family, the workers in the business should have in common the bonds of culture, e.g., music, literature, etc.  Thus, if a group of white men are in business together and they hire a black man, it should not be because they “need” a black man to signal their “diversity and inclusion”, but rather because they think he is likeminded and shares their culture and virtue.  In other words, they should hire him because he is the same, not because he is different.  His skin color – which is irrelevant – simply happens to be black.

The members of the business should have the same language to enable them to readily communicate with each other.  Such communication is essential for a bond of friendship and charity between them.

A business is strong when its workers have a spirit of sacrifice for one another and are willing to place the interests of the whole group and other members of the group above their own interests.

A business needs a strong, self-sacrificing head, clearly and prudently exercising authority.  He must direct the business for the glory of God and the good of the whole enterprise.

A business leader should be a father to his workers and should have care for their well-being.  He should not put them in moral danger because of their responsibilities at work or because of the atmosphere of the workplace.  He has a duty to do what he can to influence his workers for their eternal good.

Just as the head of the business should be a father to his workers, a business should not necessarily cast-off workers simply because they lose the ability to contribute to the organization’s economic success.  The business and its leader should act patiently and forbearingly with the problems and difficulties of their workers, like a father with his son.

Correspondingly, like the members of a family, workers at a business should respond patiently and forbearingly with the hardships experienced by the business.  Just as a family member should not “bail out of” (i.e., leave) the family as soon as he finds a “better deal” than what he receives in his family, likewise, a worker should not readily switch jobs simply because he found a “better deal”.

A business is stronger and more unified when it has bonds between its workers of friendship and mutual charity.  As with a family, “charity begins at home”.  That is, workers should especially practice fraternal charity toward one another.

In the above analysis of how a business (or other organization) should be operated, a person might suppose that it is an impossible fantasy, just as one might suppose that such a family is likewise impossible to achieve.  However, the goals outlined above are the goals that a family and business must have, according to nature, reason, and basic morality.  Further, a business can more readily achieve these goals if it is small, with carefully chosen members/workers.


A Nation’s Strength.

Like a family or a business, a nation is stronger and more unified[10] to the extent that its citizens have the same (correct) moral principles and hold in common the same (correct) ideas of truth and virtue, so that their goals are the same as well as their means of achieving these goals.[11]  In other words, a nation’s “pluralism” and “diversity” are not goals but rather are handicaps and problems.

In our pagan society, it is often stated that the government’s primary goal should be to promote economic prosperity.  That is false.  Everything a government (and its citizens) does should first of all serve God.  

The most important goal of a nation’s leader should not be to promote economic prosperity, any more than the family leader’s most important goal should be increasing the financial assets of the family.  

In other words, the citizens and leaders of a nation, like the members of a family, should realize that a nation is not merely an economic relationship but is a human association with other men also created by God, for His glory and for mutual assistance.

Thus, the primary goal of a nation (just like every part of our life) is to serve God.  In the case of a nation, the goal is to serve God collectively, as citizens and leaders of a nation.

A nation’s strength is like a family’s strength.  Like a family, the nation’s citizens should share the bonds of culture, e.g., music, literature, etc.  The nation’s citizens should have the same language to enable them to readily communicate with each other.  Such communication is essential for a bond of friendship and charity between citizens.

A nation is strong when its citizens have a spirit of sacrifice for one another and are willing to place the interests of the nation and the other citizens above their own interests.

A nation needs a strong, self-sacrificing head, clearly and prudently exercising authority.  He must lead the nation for the glory of God and the good of the whole nation.

A nation’s leader should be a father to his people and should have care for their well-being.  He should not put them in moral danger because of their life in society.  In fact, just as is true of the father of a family, a nation’s leader must give highest priority to the spiritual good of his people.[12]

Just as the nation’s leader should be a father to his people, a nation should not necessarily cast-off citizens simply because they no-longer contribute to the nation’s economic success.  We should remember that a nation’s most important goals are spiritual.  The nation and its leader should act patiently and forbearingly with the problems and difficulties of their citizens.

Correspondingly, like the members of a family, citizens should respond patiently and forbearingly with the hardships experienced by the nation.  Just as a member of a family should not “bail out of” (i.e., leave) a family as soon as he finds a “better deal” than he receives in his family, likewise, a citizen should not readily expatriate simply because he found a “better deal”.

A nation is stronger and more unified when it has bonds between its citizens of friendship and mutual charity.  As with a family, “charity begins at home”.  That is, citizens should especially practice fraternal charity toward one another.

In the above analysis of how a nation should be operated, a person might suppose that it is an impossible fantasy, just as one might suppose that such a family is likewise impossible to achieve.  However, the goals outlined above are the goals that a family and a nation must have, according to nature, reason, and basic morality.  Further, a nation can more readily achieve these goals if it is small, with a carefully chosen, united citizenry.


Conclusion

The promotion of “diversity and inclusion” is irrational and is a Marxist tool which seeks to weaken the Western World and promote strife between groups.  Instead of “diversity and inclusion”, all good men should promote assimilation and unity in the Truth and in the Good.


[1]          For a sketch of the greatness of Christopher Columbus, read Latin America: A Sketch of its Glorious Catholic Roots and a Snapshot of its Present, by the Editors of Quanta Cura Press, pp.4-6, © 2016.

[2]          See, e.g., https://www.wwu.edu/indigenous-peoples-day

[3]          Pope Pius XI warned that:

[The] preachers of Communism are proficient in exploiting racial antagonisms, political divisions, and oppositions.  

Quoted from: Divini Redemptoris – On Atheistic Communism, by Pope Pius XI, 1937, paragraph 15.  Note, as quoted 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.

[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]          Divini Redemptoris – On Atheistic Communism, by Pope Pius XI, 1937, paragraph 15.  Note, as quoted 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.

[7]          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, 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).

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

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.

[9]          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 Redemptoris – On Atheistic Communism, by Pope Pius XI, 1937, paragraph 9.

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

The welfare and safety of a multitude formed into a society lies in the preservation of its unity, which is called peace.

On Kingship, Bk. 1, c. 3.  

[11]          Here is how the great medieval Bible commentator, Fr. Cornelius a Lapide, explained the importance of a nation’s unity:

For unity imparts holiness to the mind, health to the body, peace and concord to countries and households, in short, all the virtue and strength of a nation arises out of its oneness with itself.  But division is the cause of discord, schism, war, and countless ills.

Fr. Cornelius a Lapide, Great Commentary on St. Luke, chapter 10, verse 42.

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

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

On Kingship, Bk. 1, c. 15.  

Black Lives Matter is Showing its “True Colors”

Catholic Candle note:  The article below follows up our previous article showing how closely the ideas and actions of the group, Black Lives Matter, follow the ideas and actions of Satan and Karl Marx.  https://catholiccandle.org/2021/03/03/black-lives-matters-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx/

Following up our prior article, we return briefly to the topic of the Marxist group, Black Lives Matter (“BLM”).  Last summer, BLM revealed more about itself, when it posted on the social media site, Instagram, concerning the anti-communist protest in Cuba.  BLM’s Instagram post showed that it considers promotion of Marxism to be more important than its supposed advocacy for black people.

Last summer, the people of Cuba protested more boldly and in larger numbers than at any time in the last 25 years.[1]  Along with the people’s many chants of “liberty”, there were also chants such as “down with the dictatorship”, “we want freedom”, and “we are no longer afraid”.[2] 

The Cuban communist government appeared somewhat unprepared for this major protest but, before long, they arrested and beat many people and dispersed the rest of them.[3]

This large protest by the people of Cuba appears to have been an outlet for their great suffering over decades.  Here are the conditions which the Cuban people have suffered over the decades:

Since the [Cuban communist] revolution [in 1959], most businesses are owned and run by the government and the workers are employees of the government. For the most part, the government prohibited people from owning or operating a business.  Government ownership is inefficient and causes the economy to perform poorly.  The average monthly wage (in July 2013) was about $19.  The government rations food in Cuba and there have been many serious food shortages and even starvation.  Until the government’s recent loosening (somewhat) of its attempts to control all aspects of its people’s lives, it was illegal to have a vegetable garden or raise food in any way.  In Cuba, it is still illegal for a private person to own land, and he cannot build a family home without governmental permission.  If the government gives this permission, it is still illegal to sell this home or own it.  The government has promised since 2009 to end these restrictions, but it has not yet happened.

Since Cuba’s revolution, much of the population has wanted to leave the country but is prevented from doing so by the government.  More than one million people have risked their lives to (successfully) escape Cuba, and tens of thousands have died attempting to escape. Most of these people have made the trip north to Florida in homemade boats and rafts, through shark-infested waters.

Cuba’s economy was a failure under communism, but the people managed to survive because the island received much material aid from the Soviet Union (another godless, communist country).

This aid ceased in the early 1990s and Cuba suffered a severe economic depression, from which it has not entirely recovered. For this reason, forced by severe economic problems, the government of Cuba began to relax some of its iron grip on the nation’s businesses. It began to seek foreign tourism as a means of getting money with which it could buy foreign food.[4] 

It is pitiable how these poor Cuban people suffer as slaves under their unjust, oppressive, and godless government.  Regrettably, that is what happens in all communist countries, not only in Cuba, but also in communist China and the rest.  (To take another example, in Hong Kong, the Chinese Communist Party has been ruthlessly cracking down on the people and has jailed and beaten nearly all of the leaders of the resistance, including non-communist members of Hong Kong’s parliament.)[5]

So far, the above-mentioned events are merely the typical scenario of brutal communist repression and they are almost not even “news”, just like it is not news that rats eat garbage in the alleys of big cities.  The interesting thing about these particular current events in Cuba was the reaction of Black Lives Matter.[6]

After the people’s large protest in Cuba and then the Cuban communist government’s repressive crackdown, Black Lives Matter took to Instagram to praise Cuba’s communist leaders (who are not themselves black), saying that:

Cuba has historically demonstrated solidarity with oppressed peoples of African descent, from protecting Black revolutionaries like Assata Shakur through granting her asylum, to supporting Black liberation struggles in Angola, Mozambique, Guinea Bissau and South Africa.[7]

Those so-called “Black liberation struggles” to which BLM refers, in Angola, Mozambique, Guinea Bissau and South Africa, are all communist revolutions in those countries.[8]

Assata Shakur, whom BLM refers to as a Black revolutionary, is an American Black Liberation Army member and Black Panther Party member, who was involved in a number of bank robberies and shootouts with police, in her quest to “raise money” (i.e., steal money) for the Black Liberation Army.  She admitted that she committed those robberies and she was in U.S. prison, convicted of murder, when she escaped and was granted asylum in communist Cuba.[9]

Black Lives Matter’s pro-Cuba Instagram post also attacked the U.S. in these words:

Black Lives Matter condemns the U.S. federal government’s inhumane treatment of Cubans ….[10]

BLM’s praise of the ruthless Cuban communist leaders[11] is ironic and would seem ridiculous when one considers that BLM is praising non-black leaders who are oppressing the Cuban people, about one third of whom are black or part-black.[12] 

However, when we look at the big picture, BLM is really focused on promoting communist causes.  Its support of black people is simply a convenient façade.  BLM’s loyalty is to Marxism, not to the black people as such.  This is like BLM’s unflagging support for murdering innocent babies in abortion, although more black babies are murdered in this way than babies of any other race.[13]

From the above, we can see that Black Lives Matter is a tool of the communists (and of the devil).[14]  This helps us to better see the purpose of the Marxist riots, protests, and pressure which BLM has been applying to the U.S. and throughout the Western World, especially beginning in 2020.

We must pray and fight this godless movement![15]  We are Soldiers of Christ in the Church Militant.  The first duty of a Soldier of Christ is to deny the enemy access into our own homes, by excluding the mainstream media’s lies and the world’s evil entertainments.  

Next, we must daily fight in the battle against God’s enemies, in the four-fold way He has given us to fight.  Here are four things all of us can do:

  • Sanctify ourselves;
  • Pray hard for sinners and pray for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary through the consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart by the pope and bishops of the world;
  • Be a good example to others by our own conduct; and
  • Spread and speak the truth in your “little corner of the world”.

We briefly discuss each of these points here: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/05/03/the-current-leftists-follow-the-usual-tyrants-playbook/

We must never stop fighting and must never make a (dishonorable) peace with the world.  We should accept no final result but complete victory for Christ the King!

Let us go forth to battle!


[4]         Quoted from: Latin America: A Sketch of its Glorious Catholic Roots and a Snapshot of its Present, by the Editors of Quanta Cura Press, p.11, © 2016 (bracketed words added to show context; bold emphasis added).

[6]         Incidentally, Patrisse Cullors, one of the BLM founders, recently announced that she is “stepping away” from BLM for now, in order to write a book.  She stated that this move was long planned.  But she announced this move shortly after she and BLM recently received unexpected angry reactions to reports on conservative media that she quietly bought four mansions during the last few years, in different cities, costing a total of $3.2M.  https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/inside-blm-co-founder-patrisse-khan-cullors-real-estate-buying-binge/amp/

[7]          Quoted from BML’s Instagram account found here:  https://www.instagram.com/p/CRU5kYYp-UU/

[8]          Read these articles here:


[9]         See., e.g., https://www.foxnews.com/us/assata-shakur-cuba-black-lives-matter ; James, Matthew Thomas; James, Joy James, eds. (2005). The New Abolitionists: (Neo)slave Narratives And Contemporary Prison Writings. SUNY Press. p. 77; Howell, Ron (Oct. 11, 1987) "'On the Run With Assata Shakur' – Newsday.

[10]          Reach the entire BLM Instagram post here:  https://www.instagram.com/p/CRU5kYYp-UU/

[11]          Black Lives Matter paid tribute to Fidel Castro, the communist Cuban revolutionary and leader, when he died in 2016, saying “Rest in Power”.  https://twitter.com/Blklivesmatter/status/802568605212647425?s=20

[12]   According the most recent demographic statistics we have, from 2002, 10% of Cubans are black and one quarter are part-black.  https://cubanaturetravel.com/demographics

Model Letter Explaining Refusal of a COVID Vaccine

Catholic Candle note: In our current corona-scare and on-going leftist takeover, Catholics are being pressured and “required” to receive a COVID vaccine.  We must die rather than commit this heinous sin!  Below we provide a model letter you could use when explaining why you refuse this vaccine.

We understand that some non-Catholics and liberals might be offended by the strength of the letter below.  Nonetheless, if we were to “soften” the letter it would be less effective in receiving a COVID vaccine exemption and also less likely to “plant seeds” of the Catholic Faith which could possibly sprout into a future conversion.  It takes strong “medicine” to penetrate into the souls of persons in the world who are not searching for the truth and who are completely immersed in the sensibilities of the world!

Let us remember the advice of St. Thomas Aquinas, Greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church:

If someone is scandalized by hearing the truth, it is better that such scandal would occur than that the truth not be declared. 

Catena Aurea on St. Luke’s Gospel, ch.17, §1, St. Thomas Aquinas, quoting and following the Venerable Bede, Doctor of the Church.

Suggested Model Letter Explaining the Refusal of a COVID Vaccine Mandate

To whom it concerns:

I am a Traditional Catholic, adhering to the teachings of the Catholic Church as they have been always taught prior to Vatican II (in the 1960s).

Having carefully examined the issue of the morality of the COVID-19 vaccines, I firmly conclude that it is impossible for me to accept this vaccine under the sincerely and firmly held Catholic principles which have governed my entire life.

Below, I explain my Catholic principles and their application regarding the COVID vaccines.
 

The Evil of using Vaccines made through the Murders of Babies

There are three reasons I hold that it is wrong to accept these vaccines developed or manufactured using the cell lines of murdered babies (abortion):

1.    Using those vaccines promotes future murders.

2.    Using those vaccines rewards persons connected with the murders.

3.    I would incur guilt for those murders, by the inherent consent which would be involved in accepting any one of those vaccines.

Below, I discuss each of these reasons.

1.   Using abortion-connected vaccines promotes future murders.

Using the cell lines from murdered babies encourages future murders whenever pharmaceutical companies deem it to be convenient and profitable to commit more murders for use in vaccine research or production. 

Because people did not refuse vaccines coming from babies murdered in the 1970s (viz., the 1970s-era cell lines)[1], this caused drug companies, labs, and researchers to feel “free” to commit more murders to create new cell lines.  For example, a new cell line from a new murdered baby, was announced in 2015.[2] 

Accepting those vaccines manufactured through murdered babies, promotes future murders (and every murder of an innocent human is a murder too many)!  Thus, if I would accept a vaccine produced through murder, I would be encouraging the drug companies to commit additional murders to keep vaccine production high.

2.   Using those vaccines rewards persons connected with the murders.

It is wrong to use vaccines produced from murdered babies because using these vaccines enables manufacturers to profit through the murders.  I must refuse to help drug companies make evil profitable!

3.   I would incur guilt for the babies’ murders by my consenting to use any one of those vaccines.

I would become culpable for someone else’s sin by consenting to it.[3]  When St. Paul teaches us this truth about sharing someone else’s sin by consent, he mentions murder in particular.  Here are his words:

Being filled with … murder, …  they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

Romans, 1:29-32 (emphasis added).[4]

St. Paul shows that consenting to murder is a grave sin and shows this by teaching that such consent makes us “worthy of death”.

A person is guilty of a murder by his consent when he acquiesces[5], even passively[6], or accedes, even reluctantly,[7] to the murder.  If I were to use a vaccine which comes from murder, I would be (at least) passively accepting – i.e., giving in[8] to – the murders that make those vaccines available. 

A person can incur guilt by consenting even after the murder.

Some ways of sharing in someone else’s sin can only occur before the sin is committed, e.g., commanding or advising that the sin should be committed.  See, the above list (from The Penny Catechism) of ways to share someone else’s sin. 

However, consent to a sin is different.  A person can consent to (i.e., acquiesce in) a murder either before or after it is committed, and so can incur guilt either way.

St. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church, teaches that a person can incur guilt by consenting to a murder which has already been committed.  He applies this principle (of guilt through post-murder consent) to a person who joins the Jewish religion after Christ’s murder.  Here are St. Thomas’ words:

When a person becomes a Jew, he becomes a participant in the killing of Christ. 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Lectures on St. Matthew’s Gospel, ch.23, §1861 (emphasis added).

By using those vaccines manufactured through the murders of babies, a person thus incurs guilt by consenting to (i.e., acquiescing in) the murders of those babies even though those murders were already committed.


The passage of time does not remove the implicit consent, and thus, the sin, of association with murders.

A superficial objection could be raised that the vaccines were made from murdered babies more than five decades ago and surely that is “so long ago” that we should disregard the murders because they are too distant in time.

That is wrong.  God does not cease to treat a murder as murder merely because of the passage of time.[9]  Those who commit murder and those that consent to it, remain culpable.  The mere passage of time does not remove the inherent guilt.  The punishments of hell are forever because the damned do not repent and the simple passage of time does not erase guilt (even a billion years in hell).

Just as God does not overlook culpability for murder simply because of the passage of time, man does not do so either.  In the civil society, there is typically no statute of limitations for murder.[10]  In other words, no murder is ever so remote in time that it is no longer culpable and punishable.

The murdering of the babies which was committed in order to “harvest” their cell lines, was premeditated and is first degree murder.  The passage of time does not change the guilt of those murders and does not eliminate the guilt of a person who consents to them.

No matter how much time passes, Catholics who are faithful to the Traditional teachings of the Church will never accept a vaccine developed through the murder of a baby!


The end does not justify the means.

Another superficial objection could be raised that vaccines do much good and that they save so many lives that this “outweighs” the murders through which the vaccines are produced.  However, faithful and informed Catholics must never be complicit in evil because of “good” that can come from it.  The end does not justify the means!


We are not justified in consenting to even the smallest of sins, much less, consenting to murder.

The evil at issue here is murder.  That is a very grave evil.  But even if a person were to suppose that receiving vaccines derived from the cell lines of murdered babies were “only” a small (“venial”) sin, even the very smallest sin is an infinite evil in three ways.[11]  We should be ready to die rather than commit any sin. 

Here is how St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, warns against committing even the smallest sin:

A single venial sin is more displeasing to God than [i.e., outweighs] all the good works we can perform.

St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Uniformity with God’s Will, §6 (bracketed word added for clarity).

Here is how St. John of the Cross, Doctor of the Church, warns us that the road to hell begins with small sins:

Our Lord said in the Gospel: “He that is unfaithful in little will be unfaithful also in much.”  For he that avoids the small sin will not fall into the great sin; but great evil is inherent in the small sin, since it has already penetrated within the fence and wall of the heart; and as the proverb says: Once begun, half done.

Ascent of Mount Carmel, Book III, ch.20, section 1.

Here is how John Henry Cardinal Newman declares that the smallest sin is worse than all the physical suffering in the world:

The Catholic Church holds it better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die of starvation in extremest agony, as far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one willful untruth, or should steal one poor farthing without excuse.

 Apologia Vita Sua, by John Henry Cardinal Newman, Image Books, Doubleday, Garden City, New York, © 1956, p.324.


Conclusion of this section

In summary, some vaccines are produced through cell lines obtained from murdered babies.[12]  There are three reasons I cannot accept the COVID vaccines:

1.    Using these vaccines promotes future murders.

2.    Using these vaccines rewards those connected with the murders.

3.    I would become culpable for the murders, by my consent.

 

The Currently Available COVID-19 Vaccines are all Abortion-Connected and are all sinful to receive.

1.    The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is tested using the HEK293 cell line.[13]  The abbreviation “HEK293” refers to “Human Embryonic Kidney 293, identifying the organ of the particular murdered baby, who in this case was a baby girl aborted in the Netherlands in the 1970s.[14]  Although each “cell line” is from a particular murdered baby, the cell line production process requires many babies dissected alive without anesthetic in order to successfully obtain a single such human “cell line”.[15]

2.    The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine used the parts grown from the same kidney from the same murdered baby girl.[16]

3.    The Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine used the parts of the same kidney from the same murdered baby girl.[17]

4.    The Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine uses the PER.C6 cell line.  This is the body of a different murdered baby.  This vaccine uses the retinal tissue of an 18-week baby boy who was murdered in the Netherlands in 1985.[18]

5.    The COVID-19 vaccine being developed by Sanofi/Translate Bio uses the parts of the kidney from the murdered baby girl identified as HEK293.[19]

I would commit a serious sin by accepting any of these COVID-19 vaccines because they were developed using abortion.

For these reasons, based on my sincerely and long-held Traditional Catholic principles which govern my entire life, I cannot and will not accept a COVID vaccine.

Four Catholic Candle tips:

1.    Be bold!  Don’t minimize the problem with the vaccine out of human respect for your employer.  For example, don’t change the word “baby” to “fetus” to avoid offending your employer.

2.    It is a type of intellectual laziness to say: “Just give me something to sign that will succeed in getting the waiver for me.”  Master every aspect of the contents of the letter.  You won’t do well if you don’t thoroughly understand the content of the letter you are sending.
 

3.    Do not even consider a compromise, i.e., meeting the employer “half-way”.  Not only is that a sin – and a compromise between light and darkness, between God and Baal – but if your employer knows you would even consider a compromise, it will make it less likely you would obtain your conscience objection waiver.  Thus, e.g., if your employer proposed: “would you meet us half way and get one of the two shots (of the two-shot regimen)?  If you even respond: “let me think about it”, you are signaling that you are not firm in your conviction.  This is clear because anyone who would say “let me think about cooperating in the murder of babies” is not really firm against it.

4.    As always, feel free to use Catholic Candle as a resource.  Ask us questions.  Tell us how we can help you!  That is why we are here!   



[3]              Here is a summary of this basic truth from a common catechism (The Penny Catechism):

328. When are we answerable for the sins of others? We are answerable for the sins of others whenever we either cause them, or share in them, through our own fault. 

329. In how many ways may we either cause or share the guilt of another’s sin? We may either cause or share the guilt of another’s sin in nine ways: 

 

1.    By counsel.

 

2.    By command.

3.    By consent.

4.    By provocation.

5.    By praise or flattery.

6.    By concealment.

7.    By being a partner in the sin.

8.    By silence.

9.    By defending the ill done.

 

Quoted from The Penny Catechism, Nihil Obstat, Joannes M.T. Barton, S.T.D., L.S.S., Censor deputatus, Imprimatur, Georgius L. Craven, Epus Sebastopolis, Vicarius Generalis, Westmonasterii, die 20a Junii, 1958, p.57 (emphasis added).

 

[4]           Here is the longer quote from St. Paul:

 

Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.  Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

 

Romans, 1:29-32

 

[5]           One of the definitions of consent is: “acquiescence to or acceptance of something done or planned by another”.  https://www.thefreedictionary.com/consent

[6]           One of the definitions of acquiescence is: “passive assent or agreement without protest”.  https://www.thefreedictionary.com/acquiescence

 

[7]           Two of the definitions of accede are: “to consent” and “to give in”.  https://www.thefreedictionary.com/accede

[8]           Two of the definitions of accede are: “to consent” and “to give in”.  https://www.thefreedictionary.com/accede

[9]           St. Thomas Aquinas teaches the principle that a person is culpable for consenting to a murder even when that murder had been committed many centuries earlier.  St. Thomas applies this principle to a person who joins the Jewish religion long after Christ’s murder.  Here are St. Thomas’ words:

 

When a person becomes a Jew, he becomes a participant in the killing of Christ. 

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Lectures on St. Matthew’s Gospel, ch.23, §1861.

 

Thus, St. Thomas teaches that even the passage of a long, long time (1200 years, in St. Thomas’ time) after the murder, does not remove the culpability for consenting to it.  In other words, there is no “end date” for culpability by consenting to murder after it was committed. 

 

Note also regarding St. Thomas’ own example, that he places culpability upon consent to the murder of Christ (through conversion to Judaism), not upon ethnic lineage of a person.  Thus, this culpability does not touch the Apostles or any other ethnically Jewish persons who did not (do not) consent to the murder of Christ.

 

[10]             Here is how one legal commentary summarized the state of the law:

 

               Some crimes have no statutes of limitations.  As an example, murder typically has

               none.

 

https://resources.lawinfo.com/criminal-defense/criminal-statute-limitations-time-limits.html

 

Here is how the New York courts explain that murder does not become a non-prosecutable crime because of the passage of time:

 

Statutes of limitations are laws which say how long, after certain events, a case may be started based on those events.  If the statute of limitations has run out, a case should not be started in court. If a case is started after the statute of limitations has run out, it is called time barred.  A defendant or respondent can ask the court to dismiss the case if it is time barred by the statute of limitations.

 

Statute of limitations laws are based on fairness. Over time, memories fade, evidence is lost, and witnesses disappear.  People get on with their lives and don’t expect court cases from events in the past – unless a really horrible crime has been committed.

 

The amount of time by when a person or agency can start a case is different depending on the claim. For example, cases about real property have a long time period, while slander and libel have short time periods.  Some crimes, like murder, are so terrible that they often have no limitations period.

 

Except for when a government agency is sued, there is almost always at least one year from the date of an event to start a case no matter what type of claim it is. You should have no statute of limitations worries if you file your case within this one-year period.

 

https://nycourts.gov/CourtHelp/GoingToCourt/statuteLimitations.shtml

[11]         For a full explanation of this truth that all sin is an infinite evil in three ways and mortal sin is an infinite evil in a fourth way too, read this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/the-infinite-evil-of-sin.html

 

[12]         Here is a list of vaccines connected with murder and a list of ethical alternatives, if they exist: https://cogforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/vaccineListOrigFormat.pdf

Wikipedia – a tool of the Leftists

Catholic Candle note:  The article below is a warning about the harm caused by the free, online encyclopedia called Wikipedia.  There are many ways in which Wikipedia does harm, e.g., it has a huge amount of the vilest impurities, ready to send a person straight to hell.

However, the article below focuses only on a single type of Wikipedia’s evil: its leftist bias.

 

One modern habit which is harming intellects and spreading error, is people’s wide-spread excessive use of, and overreliance on, cell phones.  Connected with that bad habit is many people’s gullibility and intellectual laziness in using unreliable online sources as their “go-to” sources for practically all information. 

By gullible and intellectually lazy, we mean a blind trust in information sources which are convenient, popular, and approved by the world, without making the effort to be more careful, dig deeper, do more thinking, reading, and searching for the truth in better, (but often less convenient), sources.

One of the common sources of falsehood frequently relied upon by the gullible and intellectually lazy, is Wikipedia.

Wikipedia was started about 20 years ago.  It is a free, online encyclopedia available to anyone with an internet connection.  The name “Wikipedia” is a combination of:

·         a Hawaiian word “wiki”, which means “quick”, but in this context seems to connote collaboration; and

·         the end of the word “encyclopedia”.

Wikipedia is free and convenient and so, is very popular.  Wikipedia claims to be:

the world’s largest reference website, attracting 1.7 billion unique visitors monthly as of November 2020.  It currently has more than fifty-six million articles in more than 300 languages, including 6,347,334 articles in English.[1]

However, Larry Sanger, one of Wikipedia’s two co-founders[2] (who has since left the organization) warns that Wikipedia “completely ignores any conservative, libertarian, or critical treatment of the subject.”[3]

According to Sanger, Wikipedia did not start with its current heavy leftist bias.  However, a decade ago, “as liberals, or leftists made their march through the institutions, Wikipedia became one of those influential institutions.  They started their march and basically took it over.”[4]

One way Wikipedia prevents the (conservative) truth being presented in its articles, is that the encyclopedia has blacklisted most conservative media sources because these media sources do not hide the truth that the leftists want to hide.[5]  These blacklisted sources are the only news sources doing any reporting on many important stories.  Wikipedia bans even mainstream media sources that are less liberal, e.g., like Fox News, the New York Post, and Daily Mail (UK).[6]  Other examples of Wikipedia’s blacklisting include Lifesitenews.com and TheEpochTimes.com.[7]

Wikipedia allows anyone to author new articles.  However, as a consequence of the above-mentioned bias, even if a Wikipedia article’s author hypothetically wanted to cite one of those less-liberal sources to support a statement in his article, he is not allowed to do so.  If the author gives no citation to a source, he risks deletion of his statement by Wikipedia because it is unsupported.

Let us examine a few examples of Wikipedia’s leftist bias.


Wikipedia changes “facts” in its “historical” and “scientific” articles, serving leftist goals.

Have you ever heard of Dr. Robert Malone?  According to Wikipedia in mid-June 2021, he is the principal inventor of the mRNA technology used in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.  Here is a screenshot of the beginning of Wikipedia’s entry for the invention of mRNA technology, as it read on June 14, 2021:

Image

This entry is now changed (as we will explain below); and so, we had to extract the above screenshot from a past version of Wikipedia which is stored at archive.org.[8]

On June 10, 2021, Dr. Malone joined biologist Dr. Bret Weinstein, Ph.D., on the Dark Horse Podcast, to discuss the use of mRNA technology in the COVID “vaccines”.[9]  Dr. Malone raised numerous safety concerns about the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, both of which use the mRNA technology invented under his leadership.  Among other hazards, he warned about future autoimmune risks caused by the spike proteins within the mRNA injections.

This podcast was uploaded onto YouTube but it didn’t last there very long before YouTube deleted his warnings off of its site.[10]

Dr. Malone repeated his warning about the danger of mRNA “vaccines” when he appeared a few days later on Fox News.[11]  So here was one of the principal inventors of the mRNA technology used in these COVID “vaccines”, who was warning about their danger.  These warnings contradicted the mainstream media’s constant promotion of those “vaccines” and Dr. Malone’s status as chief inventor of this technology gave great weight to his warnings.

On June 16, 2021, Wikipedia changed its mRNA article to remove all credit and mention of Dr. Malone from the entry.  Here is a screenshot, (again from archive.org[12], because Wikipedia changed the mRNA article again, as will be explained below):

Image

Wikipedia then tweaked the article again to give chief credit to Jon Wolff (a collaborator of Malone’s in 1990), for the mRNA research experiments.  Here is a screenshot from earlier July 2021[13]:  

Image

As you see, Wikipedia’s article now also praises and promotes Katalin Karikó.  Karikó strongly promotes these mRNA “vaccines”.[14]

This is an example of Wikipedia’s bias in countless articles.  This reminds us of the warnings in George Orwell’s novel, 1984, in which the main character, Winston, worked in the Ministry of Truth to re-write articles in order to change the “truth” as it had been previously written, in order to fit the current desires of the totalitarian government.

There are countless other examples, besides the above, extended example of Wikipedia falsifying history and science by re-writing[15] what it claims as true.  Wikipedia expediently changes its narrative of the science/history involved, thereby destroying Dr. Malone’s important authority to speak on the subject, serving to promote the vaccines using the technology that Dr. Malone knew well and about which he began giving public warnings.  Wikipedia was his “cheerleader” until political expedience caused Wikipedia to “cancel” him.

Let’s look into more examples that show Wikipedia promoting leftist ideology rather than truth and facts.


Gender dysphoria on Wikipedia

Wikipedia writes a solemn “academic” treatment of people’s gender delusions as if those poor confused souls were not out of touch with reality.[16]

Wikipedia writes how some people have no gender (“agender”).[17]

Wikipedia solemnly explains the teachings of “scholar” Finn Enke, a poor deluded woman professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison (a university known for its craziness and its doctrinaire leftism, similar, in this way, to the University of California at Berkeley).  On Enke’s website, you can also see that woman’s ugly, disorderly, talentless, and gimmicky “art” that she is promoting.[18]

With great seriousness, Wikipedia explains how “agender” is a gender, how a person can have multiple genders at once, or even all genders at once (whatever that means, and which absurdity is called “omnigender”).[19]

Wikipedia solemnly explains how some people (whom common sense recognizes as indecisive and confused) are “gender fluid” because they don’t want to commit to being either one of the two real genders or even firmly commit to any other specific (pretend) gender they might concoct.[20]

This Wikipedia article (as so many others) pretends that Nature does not exist, as if God does not exist, and as if reality were only whatever a person chooses, similar to a person deliriously deciding he is Napoleon. 

Wikipedia gives no hint that this transgender delusion is irrational.  Of course, we also know that this position (which Wikipedia sets forth) not only attacks sound reason and the magnificent Catholic culture which the Catholic Church built (viz., Christendom), but also God’s Law and the Holy Catholic Faith itself.

Further, Wikipedia gives no hint that there is another side on this issue, besides the satanic lie that Wikipedia gives.  Perhaps Wikipedia would object that it does present both sides of an issue when there are two sides worthy of mention.  Wikipedia might then claim that its transgender position – which is the leftist position – is the only reasonable one and so that is why the article does not give the conservative (and true) position.  However, even under that hypothesis, Wikipedia would still be no less biased and this would still result in Wikipedia being a purveyor of leftist propaganda.

Wikipedia’s article does not mention that this transgenderism was listed as a mental illness by the World Health Organization until 2019 and by the American Psychiatric Association until 2012.[21]

This is one of countless examples of Wikipedia pushing the leftist evils as if they were the only “orthodoxy”.

Truly, our times fit St. Paul’s warning:

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

2 Timothy, 4:3-4.


Wikipedia’s treatment of “conversion therapy”

We know from our Holy Catholic Faith (as well as from the science of Ethics) that a man can follow reason and eschew sin and vice.  In this he is not like the brute beasts, who follow instinct and have no free will.  Unlike the brute beasts, man is both capable of sin and capable of overcoming sin.  Unnatural vice is sinful[22] because a man has a free will and can stop sinning.

Thus, we know that a man who has fallen into unnatural vice was not “made that way” as some of those men claim, nor is he incapable of ceasing to commit those sins (as is also true of other sins).

So, we know that a person can stop committing these unnatural sins and that people can help him do so, by prayer, moral support, good habits, good advice, etc.  This is Catholic, reasonable, and common sense.

Now let’s look at Wikipedia’s false and leftist treatment of the issue.

Wikipedia correctly says that “conversion therapy” involves trying to change someone who is involved in such unnatural impurity, and describes the methods as:

counseling, visualization, social skills training, psychoanalytic therapy, and spiritual interventions such as “prayer and group support and pressure”.[23]

In a rough sort of way, this description corresponds to the many Catholic moral helps which can aid a person to conquer this habit of sin.

Wikipedia adds that all such efforts to help a person free himself from this unnatural vice are “pseudoscientific”.[24]  Wikipedia defines “pseudoscience” in a way that shows Wikipedia is saying that conversion therapy does not and cannot work:

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.  Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited.[25]

Wikipedia not only falsely declares that efforts to help a person to stop committing sins of unnatural vice are unscientific, discredited, and futile, but also connects these efforts (in the article) with “icepick lobotomies”, electric shock therapy, and other weird things[26] which have nothing to do with helping a person eschew sin by increasing virtue in the soul, as God wants us all to do.

As with the transgender article discussed above, this Wikipedia article (as so many others) pretends that Nature does not exist, that God does not exist, and that acts of unnatural vice are good, if that is what a person chooses.

Again, Wikipedia’s position is not only attacking reason and the magnificent Catholic culture which the Catholic Church built, but also the Holy Catholic Faith itself.

Also, Wikipedia gives no hint that there is another side on this issue, beside the satanic lie that Wikipedia gives.  If Wikipedia does not even recognize there is a conservative (and true) position worthy of discussion, that would merely cement Wikipedia’s status as a leftist mouthpiece. 

Wikipedia gives no hint that, only a few decades ago, before society became as degraded as it is, this unnatural vice was listed as a mental illness and also was a felony.  This crime traces its way back to the law of God, making it a capital offense.   Leviticus, 20:13

This is one of countless examples of Wikipedia pushing the leftist evils as if they were the only “orthodoxy”.

Historically, Catholic morality has been reflected in the civilized world’s common law.  That is a subject for a different article, but many of the basic principles of our law, like the right to confront witnesses, were first established in the Church’s own courts.

Of course, the Catholic Church and the Natural Law are the source of much of the civilized world’s substantive laws too, such as the recognition of the criminality of unnatural vice.  See, e.g., the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the criminality of unnatural vice, in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).


Wikipedia casts doubt on the truth of the Gospels

With a thin veneer of pseudo “scholarship”, Wikipedia rolls out the usual claims made by Our Lord’s enemies that the Gospels are uncertain, unreliable, disputed, contradictory, and not historically accurate.[27]  Wikipedia simply echoes the assertions of centuries of heretics, Jews, and other non-believers in telling the reader that the Gospels tell us little or nothing about the “historical Jesus”.[28]  Rather, they are merely pious assertions and falsehoods which are disputed by “truth-telling” scholars.[29]  Wikipedia asserts that its pronouncements on the Gospels are the conclusions of “the majority of scholars”, although Wikipedia makes no effort to prove this false assertion. 

Wikipedia’s promotion of abortion

Wikipedia’s article on abortion is full of falsehoods and leftist bias.  For example, it claims that “When properly done, abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine.”[30]  This is a statement straight from Planned Parenthood’s own propaganda. 

Wikipedia’s claim omits the obvious fact that abortion murders a baby, so it is a deadly procedure.  Further, this claim ignores the vast body of evidence proving the grave harm to the mother, morally, emotionally[31], intellectually, and, often, physically[32], when she consents to be an accomplice to this murder of her baby.


Wikipedia’s promotion of legalizing mind-altering drugs

Wikipedia minimally acknowledges some of the obvious problems with legalizing hallucinogenic drugs, e.g., legalization leads to increased consumption of drugs.[33]  But Wikipedia’s treatment is like the typical leftist talking points which promote the legalization of “recreational” narcotics.  Although Wikipedia mentions that legalization foreseeably will cause drug use to increase, the encyclopedia then quickly transitions to the pro-legalization talking points, such as decreased gang violence, saving the costs of enforcing these laws, ability to tax “recreational” narcotic use to increase government tax revenue, and the police’s ability to concentrate on enforcing other laws.[34]


Wikipedia’s promotion of allowing the adoption of children by persons who live lives of unnatural impurity

Wikipedia’s leftist bias is on display on this adoption issue too.  Wikipedia presents (supposed) “science”, “fairness”, and “civil rights” in favor of this evil, and says that those people opposed to such adoptions are against it because of their own personal assumptions and personal faith-beliefs.[35]  The implication is that these assumptions are unscientific and unfair and that the particulars of such people’s personal beliefs are not a basis for society to prohibit such adoptions.


Wikipedia promotes the leftists’ “climate change” narrative

Wikipedia promotes the leftists’ climate alarmism.[36]  The encyclopedia falsely claims that there is an “overwhelming scientific consensus” for global warming caused by humans.  Wikipedia falsely says all research scientists agree on this “fact” and that “no scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view”.[37]

Wikipedia says that the only persons who disagree are the deniers spreading misinformation, who are funded by conservatives and the self-interested fossil fuel industry.  Wikipedia says that the uncertainty and controversy are not real but only manufactured.[38]  The article does not give any of the great abundance of evidence disproving the leftists’ climate alarmism.

Wikipedia promotes the leftists’ narrative on the 2020 U.S. presidential elections

Wikipedia gives a false, one-sided account of the 2020 election fraud controversy, saying that the Republican side was merely “promoting the conspiracy theory that falsely posits” election fraud.  Here is one place Wikipedia states this leftist propaganda:

Stop the Steal is a far-right and conservative campaign and protest movement in the United States promoting the conspiracy theory that falsely posits that widespread electoral fraud occurred during the 2020 presidential election to deny incumbent President Donald Trump victory over former vice president Joe Biden.[39]

This article is false and completely one-sided, failing to provide any of the extensive evidence of the actual voting fraud.[40]  However, leaving to a different time an examination of the truth of the fraud evidence (which exists in large amounts), for the present we note that this is another example of Wikipedia giving a one-sided narrative setting forth only the leftists’ talking points. 

So, if anyone seeks only to know what the leftists say about the election fraud, he can find it in Wikipedia.  But for anyone seeking to understand what evidence has moved 41% of U.S. voters to believe that Biden did not win the election fairly,[41] Wikipedia withholds this information.[42]


Conclusion

Wikipedia is largely not a source of truth but of leftist ideology.  Wikipedia can (and often does) change its articles almost instantaneously to take today’s news into account.  So, what was “true” yesterday, might be denied or deleted today, with no indication that yesterday’s “truth” was the opposite.

Beware of Wikipedia’s leftist bias on a large number of topics:

  from philosophy to foreign policy;

  from science to civil unrest;

  from technology to elections;

 

  from biography to religion;

  from history to immigration;

  from morals to medicine;

 

  from forensics to the Constitution;

 

  from medicine to music;

 

  from law to culture; and

 

  from politics to the rule of law.

With few exceptions, only globalist, progressive mainstream sources – and sources friendly to globalist progressivism – are permitted.  What is against Wikipedia’s leftist agenda is either ignored or is summarily dismissed as “misinformation” or a “conspiracy theory”.  In saying so, Wikipedia (and other, similarly-biased institutions) are plainly claiming exclusive control over what is thinkable.  They want any debate to occur only on the leftist playing field and want to set the boundaries of that debate, in order to tell you how to think about countless important issues.

Wikipedia articles are the perfect bait for intellectually lazy and gullible people, who are looking for a “go-to” source which is convenient, popular, and approved by the world, which does not require the effort to be more careful, dig deeper, do more thinking, reading, and searching for the truth in better, (but often less convenient), sources. 

A further “advantage” for lazy Catholics, that get their information from Wikipedia, is that they do not risk the possibility that they might learn something which would require them to withstand opposition from the world in order to defend truth and Christ the King.

We are not saying that Wikipedia never ever says anything true – even Satan tells some truths/half-truths, for his own ends.  But we urge everyone to remember whenever he is on Wikipedia (if ever) that he is in enemy-occupied territory, which exists to move the reader toward the left.



[9]           These mRNA treatments are called “vaccines” but don’t really fit the definition of what a vaccine is.  Instead, they are really gene therapy.  They are falsely called “vaccines” because that label makes them more acceptable to the public than if the experimental COVID mRNA treatments were called “gene therapy”.  That is an issue we will return to in a future article.

[13]         This screenshot is found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_vaccine

 

[15]         Wikipedia is not the only leftist media company which changes its information on the fly, to serve the leftist agenda.  Another prominent example is Merriam-Webster, owned by Encyclopedia Britannica. 

 

In October 2020, when Mrs. Amy Coney Barrett (who is relatively conservative) was testifying at her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, she was asked, in substance, if she supported a person’s “right” to live a life of unnatural impurity. 

 

Mrs. Barrett replied obliquely that she never discriminated against people with that “preference”.  The leftists, including Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, quickly pounced on her for implying that people living like that were not “born that way”.  Senator Hirono and various leftist pressure groups said that Mrs. Barrett’s comment was insulting to persons living that “lifestyle”.

 

One problem for the leftists, though, was that the principal dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster, showed that Mrs. Barrett’s word usage was correct and not insulting.  So, the same day Merriam-Webster changed its definition to state that using the word “preference” the way she did was an insult.

 

Read the account of this incident here: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/merriam-webster-dictionary-updates-sexual-preference-entry-after-amy-coney-barrett-hearing/ar-BB1a3Glr and https://www.dailywire.com/news/merriam-webster-suddenly-alters-definition-of-preference-after-dems-attack-coney-barrett

 

[16]         For an examination of how this transgender delusion is a consequence of society’s apostasy from the Catholic Church, read this article: https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/01/the-direct-road-from-apostasy-to-gender-confusion/

 

[18]         https://finnenke.com/

 

[22]         Romans, 1:27.

[25]         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience (emphasis added).

 


[32]         Although the mainstream media ignores the frequent medical emergencies, the serious physical injuries to the mothers of the murdered babies is so common it is hardly “news”.  Here is one of countless reports: https://www.lifenews.com/2021/08/05/woman-hemorrhages-after-abortion-clinic-lacerates-her-uterus-during-botched-22-week-abortion/

[36]         Climate alarmism is really a power grab to control people.  Read this analysis here: https://catholiccandle.org/?s=climate

 

[40]         See, among many other analyses of election fraud, White House trade representative Peter Navarro’s three-part analysis available here: https://peternavarro.com/the-navarro-report/

 

[42]                     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election (Emphasis in the original).