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).

 

To Govern Without God is To Live Without Peace

Our Lady at Fatima, speaking to the three children in 1917, said, “He (i.e., God) is going to punish the world for its crimes by means of war, hunger, persecution of the Church.  …  To forestall this, I shall ask the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart.  …  If they heed my request, Russia will be converted and there will be peace.  If not, she (i.e., Russia) shall spread her errors throughout the world, promoting wars and persecution of the Church."

I’m sure most of you have heard this many times before.  However, my point here is not just to remind you again, but to point out that we have not done what she asked.  Thus, we are living through the fact that Russia is spreading her errors throughout the world.  There are wars, and the Church is being persecuted.

The world has rejected God and He is allowing us to suffer for our rejection of Him, just like a person who is in poor health because he drinks too much: God doesn’t send an angel to tell him to stop; no, He lets him drink too much and suffer the consequences.

Russia has not been consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, so that country has spread her errors (i.e., goals) throughout the world.  These goals are listed below and were published in the Congressional Record of Jan. 10, 1963.  As you read these goals, recall how they have already been accomplished and disastrously impact our daily life.

CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS:

  Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

  Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

  Promote the United Nations as the only hope for mankind.

  Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

  Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

  Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

  Get control of the schools.  Use them for transmission belts for Socialism and current Communist propaganda.  Soften the curriculum.  Get control of teachers’ associations.  Put the party-line in textbooks.

  Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which the Communists oppose.

  Infiltrate the press.  Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, and policy-making positions.

  Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

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

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

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

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

 

  Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as “normal, natural, and healthy.”

  Infiltrate the churches.  Discredit the Bible.

  Eliminate prayer or any phrase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

  Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, etc.

  Discredit the American Founding Fathers.  Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

  Support any Socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

  Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

  Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

  Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

  Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. 

  Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

  Discredit the family as an institution.  Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

  Emphasize the need to raise children away from the “negative influence” of parents.

  Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition [e.g., Black Lives Matter & Antifa], that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use “united force” to solve economic, political, or social problems.

It is certainly not difficult to see that the above Communist goals are actually being increasingly achieved, as per Our Lady’s prediction.  It is a direct consequence of the failure to conduct the consecration of Russia to the Blessed Mother.

But what now?  What can we expect in the future? 

Unfortunately, I expect that our day-to-day life will become almost unbearable, with our culture and morals destroyed by anti-God Communist errors spread everywhere.  The other side of this bleak picture is Our Lady’s promise: “…..in the end my Immaculate Heart shall triumph.  The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, which will be converted, and a time of peace will be given to the world.”

So do not despair.  God will not leave uncompromising traditional Catholics in the catacombs indefinitely.  No, I believe He will give us many more graces to strengthen us to fight the good fight with inner peace and hope for our heavenly reward.

Of course, it goes without saying that we must pray unceasingly, sacrifice, and live with complete confidence in God.

 

 

The Current Leftists Follow the Usual “Tyrant’s Playbook”


This same “Playbook” also shows us how to Resist Tyranny

Catholic Candle note: The article below concerns the descent of the U.S. government (and other Western governments) into tyranny.[1]  While the evidence we give below comes mostly from the U.S., similar evidence can be found in other Western countries. 

Although it is true that we suffer under increasing tyranny, we must also remember that revolution is a sin and Catholics are not revolutionaries.  Read the explanation for that truth here: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/02/01/revolution-is-in-the-air/

 

 

Human nature always remains the same and so the virtues of good men and the vices of evil men remain essentially the same as they always were.  One consequence of this truth is that the “playbook” for acquiring and maintaining a tyrannical government is essentially the same as it was throughout all history.

For this reason, our best guides/teachers concerning the features of tyranny (and the rest of the science of political life) remain the ancient (and greatest) philosophers of all time, namely, St. Thomas Aquinas (the greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church), and the magnificent Aristotle.

St. Thomas and Aristotle describe how governments act when they seek to achieve and maintain tyranny.  We see their descriptions of tyranny given so long ago now being exemplified daily in news reports, especially since March 2020.


A tyrannical government seeks discord among its citizens to prevent them from uniting against the tyranny.

A tyrannical government fears that its people will unite against the tyranny imposed on them.  Thus, such government seeks to divide its people into warring or contentious factions or classes, to keep them too weak and disunited to effectively oppose the tyranny.

Here is how Aristotle explains this truth:

[One] art of the tyrant is to sow quarrels among the citizens; friends [being] embroiled with friends, the people with the notables,[2] and the rich with one another.[3]

Current application: Our increasingly-tyrannical government actively fosters division and contention among its people.  Thus, for example, the government fosters division of the people into a plethora of “victim” groups whose grievances are constantly stoked and whose resentment it encourages.  The tyrannical government and its allies[4] (e.g., in the mainstream media, Big Tech, radical universities, big corporations[5], big banks[6], etc.) promote such division along the lines of race[7], gender, unnatural vice, “transgender”, immigration status, and many other bases.

Our increasingly-tyrannical government encourages people to “snitch” (tattletale) on each other, for non-compliance with abusive COVID-restrictions, seeking to set its people against each other.[8]  As the mayor of Los Angeles stated: “snitches get rewards.”[9]  This mentality should be abhorrent to a free people.


A tyrannical government seeks to eliminate opportunities for its people to build bonds of friendship and trust.

Not only does a tyrannical government promote divisiveness among its people, but it also seeks to prevent the opposite from happening, viz., development by its people of strong bonds of friendship and trust between each other.  Such bonds would allow the people to unite against the oppressive government and in other ways join together in ways not controlled by the tyrants.[10]

Here is how St. Thomas explains the tyrant’s suppression of the people’s bonds of friendship and mutual trust:

They [viz., tyrants] also see to it that there be no friendly relations among these [viz., the people] so that they may not enjoy the benefits resulting from being on good terms with one another, for as long as one has no confidence in the other, no plot will be set up against the tyrant’s domination.  Wherefore they … forbid anything which furthers society and co-operation among men, such as marriage, company at table, and anything of like character, through which familiarity and confidence are engendered among men.[11]

Similarly, Aristotle teaches that tyrants act this way:

[A tyrant] must not allow common meals, clubs, education, and the like; … he must prohibit literary assemblies or other meetings for discussion, and he must take every means to prevent people from knowing one another, for acquaintance begets mutual confidence.[12]

Current application: Among the countless examples of our increasingly-tyrannical government seeking to alienate the people from each other, we see lockdowns by which abusive government seeks to prevent the association of good people with each other, while allowing Marxist protestors and rioters to have free reign to promote disorder, civil unrest, destruction, and other evils.[13]

Our increasingly-tyrannical government closes restaurants as well as commands the people not to gather in their homes with friends and relatives.  One Canadian Premier boasted that he is “the guy who’s stealing Christmas” because he abusively banned social gatherings then.[14]

Our increasingly-tyrannical governments are abusing their authority by alienating people from each other by stifling social contact through mask mandates, so-called “social-distancing” and other anti-social commands.[15]

The tyrants prohibit people from gathering at funerals and from visiting the sick at hospitals because those acts promote charity and human bonds between members of society.

Our oppressors ordered the closing of most businesses, clubs, and meeting places.  They banned serious attempts at education and allowed only ineffective “pretend” education over Zoom.

Our increasingly-tyrannical government’s destruction of society’s cohesiveness has become more abusive recently, but has long included the evil of pushing mothers out of the home[16] to get a “career”[17] and to destabilize the family[18] by promoting divorce and temporary “romantic” liaisons while at the same time discouraging marriage.[19]

Just as in communist countries, Western governments are implementing (or currently developing) “vaccine passports” to control the people’s travel in order to cement control over them.


Our increasingly-tyrannical government seeks to know everything we do.

Our increasingly-tyrannical government seeks to keep the people under constant surveillance.

Here is how Aristotle explains this conduct of tyrants:

Further, [a tyrant] must compel all persons staying in the city to appear in public and live at his gates; then he will know what they are doing: if they are always kept under, they will learn to be humble.  In short, … a tyrant …  endeavor[s] to know what each of his subjects says or does, and … employ[s] spies ….[20]

Applications:

One dramatic example is the Obama-era initiative directing the National Security Administration to conduct the MYSTIC and RETRO programs to gather and record the voice phone calls of Americans and others.[21]  This program was secretly begun in 2009 and only revealed in 2014 by whistleblower Edward Snowden.[22]  Because of subsequent political pressure, the U.S. federal government announced that it “voluntarily” limited the scope and reach of these programs.  It is unclear how the true status can be known since the program’s very existence was kept secret for about five years.

There are video cameras watching people virtually everywhere.  These cameras are in use not only in communist countries such as China[23] but also in places such as Belgium[24], France, Britain (4.2 million cameras),[25] and Atlanta, Georgia, (11,000 cameras) [26] watching everything the people do.

In other ways also, communist governments[27] and the increasingly-tyrannical Western governments, such as Germany[28], constantly surveille their people.


Increasingly-tyrannical Western governments seek to corrupt the morals of the people

A tyrannical government seeks to erode the virtues of its citizens – especially courage – as well as to harm its people’s spiritual good in other ways, because virtue makes citizens act according to both reason and firm principles; but these very qualities are independent of the control of the tyrannical government.  Thus, virtuous men cannot be easily manipulated by the whims of an evil government.  Here is how St. Thomas explains this truth:

Nor does the tyrant merely oppress his subjects in corporal things but he also hinders their spiritual good.  Those who seek more to use, than to be of use to, their subjects prevent all progress, suspecting all excellence in their subjects to be prejudicial to their own evil domination.  For tyrants hold the good [citizens] in greater suspicion than the wicked, and to them the valor of others is always fraught with danger.  So, the above-mentioned tyrants strive to prevent those of their subjects who have become virtuous from acquiring valor and high spirit in order that they may not want to cast off their [viz., the tyrants’] iniquitous domination.[29]

Application: Among the countless examples of tyrannical governments oppressing the virtue of its citizens, we see governments attempting to disarm the people[30] lest they courageously defend themselves against criminals and/or tyranny.

Likewise, tyrannical governments seek to stifle other instances of standing up for morals, such as a cake bakery refusing to make a cake to celebrate a “lifestyle” of vile impurity.[31]  In another example, a British man is arrested for reading the Bible in public, concern what marriage and the family are.[32]

We see the government-supported schools teaching how to commit the vilest impurities and indoctrinating students about the advantages of murdering innocent babies.

The increasingly-tyrannical governments (and their media allies) promote immorality as well as acting on emotion, rather than encouraging people to use their reason.[33]

The tyrants order most of society to “lockdown” and command the closing of churches[34] while permitting marijuana dispensaries[35] and clinics murdering innocent babies[36] to be designated “essential businesses” which can remain open.


Our increasingly-tyrannical government seeks to prevent its citizens from obtaining wealth and power which is independent of the government, but promotes wealth and power for those persons who are the tyrants’ own allies in oppressing the people.

A tyrannical government fears its citizens who are rich and powerful unless it controls those citizens or unless they are allies in the tyranny. 

Aristotle teaches:

It is characteristic of a tyrant to dislike everyone who has dignity or independence ….[37]

St. Thomas further explains this truth:

They [viz., tyrants] moreover strive to prevent their subjects from becoming powerful and rich since, suspecting these to be as wicked as themselves, they fear their power and wealth; for the subjects might become harmful to them even as they are accustomed to use power and wealth to harm others.[38]

Aristotle adds more points along the same line:

[A tyrant seeks to] impoverish his subjects; he thus provides against the maintenance of a guard by the citizen and the people, having to keep hard at work, [so they] are prevented from conspiring.  …  Another practice of tyrants is to multiply taxes ….[39]

Application: We see Bill Gates, George Soros, the Big Tech companies, Big Pharma,[40] the “Big box” stores all thriving and all using their political and economic muscle to promote the increasing tyranny which is oppressing the people.  Meanwhile, the governments’ abusive lockdowns and regulations are oppressing small business and bankrupting the “mom and pop” businesses, which are forced to shut down because of lockdowns (if other government meddling does not kill them first).  Also, this destruction of our economy causes unemployment, impoverishment and dependence on the government.

Further, inflation and debasement of our currency are like hidden taxes to impoverish the people.[41]

The leftists not only push socialism, big government, and tremendous spending sprees in Western countries, but also increase taxes, seeking to destroy the financial independence of the people.


Our increasingly-tyrannical government promotes endless foreign wars

When a government is tyrannical, it seeks to engage in continual military activities in other places in the world, to weaken the country and make people tired of conflict so they are less likely to be willing to challenge their own tyrannical government.  Such foreign wars also impoverish the people and tend to make them rally behind their (tyrannical) leaders because they face a foreign foe.  Here is how Aristotle teaches this truth:

The tyrant is also fond of making war in order that his subjects may have something to do and be always in want of a leader.[42]

Dystopian novelist, George Orwell, portrays how tyrannical governments stay in power, in part, because of continual trumped-up wars.  Here is the setting of his novel, 1984:

[W]ar had been literally continuous, though strictly speaking it had not always been the same war. …[43]

In principle, the war effort is always so planned as to eat up any surplus that might exist after meeting the bare needs of the population.  In practice, the needs of the population are always underestimated, with the result that there is a chronic shortage of half the necessities of life; but this is looked on as an advantage.  It is deliberate policy to keep even the favoured groups somewhere near the brink of hardship, because a general state of scarcity increases the importance of small privileges and thus magnifies the distinction between one group and another.[44]

Application:

The U.S. and other Western countries have embarked in a long string of foreign wars where victory was seemingly not the goal and these countries withdrew after sufficient time, energy, blood and treasure were exhausted.  These countries are now working toward supposed withdrawing from Afghanistan (the U.S.’s longest war) and Iraq, preceded by earlier “adventures” in Iraq, Kuwait, Vietnam, Korea, Libya (two wars), Syria, Uganda, Somalia (two wars), Serbia, Haiti, and Bosnia, in the last three decades.[45]


As governments become increasingly tyrannical, the people become dispirited, demoralized, and discouraged from participating in public life, and they hide themselves.

When a government is tyrannical, people “keep their heads down” and don’t join in public life because they do not want to be attacked.  Here is how St. Thomas explains this truth:

[As it says in the Book of Proverbs, 28:28]: “When the wicked rise up men shall hide themselves”, that they may escape the cruelty of the tyrant.  It is no wonder, for a man governing without reason, according to the lust of his soul, in no way differs from the beast.  Whence Solomon says [Prov 28:15]: “As a roaring lion and a hungry bear, so is a wicked prince over the poor people.”  Therefore, men hide from tyrants as from cruel beasts and it seems that to be subject to a tyrant is the same thing as to lie prostrate beneath a raging beast.[46]

Application: In 2019, a mother in Notre Dame, Indiana was disturbed by the indecent attire worn by the young women in church, wrote a local newspaper editorial asking women to dress more modestly.[47]  She was attacked contemptuously from all over the U.S. including in the Washington Post.[48]  That is one of countless messages leftists send, telling people of common sense, who have somewhat conservative views, to stay quiet or you will be attacked.

In another example, a “Christian” bakery closes down because the owners were exhausted because of harassment by leftists.[49]

Similarly, conservative-leaning teachers and university professors and many others in public life “keep their heads down” or retire early (just when we need them the most), to avoid being viciously attacked. 


Aristotle sums up the character of tyrants

Aristotle recaps a tyrant this way: there is no wickedness too great for him.[50]

Application: We see the truth of Aristotle’s observation in the decadence promoted by our increasingly-tyrannical governments.  For example, Virginia’s governor and many other government leaders have sunk so low as to promote infanticide.[51]


What can we do to oppose the increasing tyranny we are facing?

We are soldiers of Christ the King and we have a duty (and the honor!) of doing what we can to oppose the coming kingdom of Satan.  But what can we do?  Here are four things all of us can do:

1.    Sanctify ourselves;

2.    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;

3.    Be a good example to others by our own conduct; and

4.    Spread and speak the truth in your “little corner of the world”.

Below, we briefly discuss each of these points.


1. Sanctify ourselves

This is our principal duty in life and is the first element of serving and glorifying God.

Holiness of life is our main weapon in the fight against Satan and his minions.  As St. John teaches: “this is the victory which overcometh the world, our faith.”[52]  Our virtue and holiness are not only our main weapons but they also give effectiveness to our other weapons.

2. 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

Our fight is for Christ the King.  Our fight is more against Satan than against his evil minions.  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.[53]

That is always true.  But in our times, one can see even more obviously that we are fighting Satan himself, as, e.g., we increasingly see that our leftist enemies openly promote their connection to, and service of, demonic spirits.[54]


3. Be a good example to others by our own conduct

Our Lord told us: “So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.”[55]  God wants us to live lives which are a beacon of light in the darkness around us.

Thus, we should not fear to live our Faith in public, without pretension and without apology.  This means, e.g., unostentatiously praying your meal prayer in public (e.g., when you are in a restaurant), praying your morning rosary on the bus (when that is where you are when it is time for your prayers), not cowering before the “mask police” when entering a store or post office, etc.

As stated in the precept attributed to St. Francis of Assisi: “Preach the Gospel always.  When necessary, use words.”

Living the holy Catholic Faith without cowardliness will do much for the strength of your own Faith as well as for the encouragement of others.  Our example will help our neighbor maintain his bearings in this disorienting world.

It is easy for people to lose hope because it seems that the whole world is against us.  However, it is a great blessing to be alive now and to be serving Christ the King.[56]  We should live our lives cheerfully and courageously, always remembering that “If God be for us, who is against us?”  Romans, 8:31.  Our firmness and calm joy will “rub off” on others.

As much as possible, don’t cooperate with any of the tyranny being imposed by the governments and their allies.  Be bold for Christ the King!  In this way, you avoid giving bad example and you strengthen people to act courageously themselves.

4.   Always spread and speak the truth in your “little corner of the world”.

God does not want us to teach everyone – otherwise He would have made us the “teacher of the world”.  He gave us a tiny corner of the world in which to profess the truth – His Truth – to those that He puts in our path.  We can do this in conversations, spreading good books and articles, etc.

For example, some of the Catholic Candle team, whose duties of state include weekly trips to the grocery store, have engaged in countless discussions about the Catholic Faith, which were started by store clerks or other customers because those Catholic Candle team members were modestly dressed, not wearing a mask/muzzle (when everyone else did), etc.

These discussions often have resulted in giving those clerks or customers rosaries, catechism books, good Catholic advice, etc.

This is what we should all do, as opportunity presents itself.

Let us always remember: we are first and foremost Catholics!  We are subjects of Christ the King!  Everything else we are, is secondary!


Thoughts of Comfort and Clarity

During Revolutionary Times

 

With a grateful “nod” to Tale of Two Cities, by Charles Dickens, especially the first and last paragraphs of this novel about the French Revolution

 

‘Tis best of times and worst of times,

‘Tis age of wisdom and the fool,

It is the epoch of belief,

As well, the epoch incredule.

 

It is the season of the Light,

And also season of the Dark,

The spring of promise and of hope,

The winter, which despair doth mark.

 

‘Tis best of times because our times,

Are made for us to save our soul,

The times to prove who loves Our Lord,

And places first th’ eternal goal.

 

‘Tis worst of times because our times,

Have revolution in the air,

The wolves and leftists in control,

We, for our martyrdom, prepare.

 

‘Tis age of wisdom, in our times,

We, saints or Satanists must be,

We must have greatest trust in God,

And live the right priority.

 

Yes, ‘tis the time of fools galore,

With high regard for software fast,

But no care for eternal truth,

Nor the great learning of the past.

 

It is the epoch of belief,

A blind trust in the “science” fake,

“Religion” of the mask mandate,

And climate “crisis” man did make.

 

It is the epoch incredule,

Reject whatever use to be,

Reject Tradition, truth and good,

Trust feelings though, and “empathy”.

 

God Willed us to live now, and help,

Our children – both the young and grown,

This, leading to far-better rest,

God grant! – than we have ever known.



[1]           In this article, we use the word “tyranny” in the broad sense of “unjust or oppressive governmental power.”  This definition is the first one given in The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. 

[2]           Webster’s Dictionary defines the noun “notable” as: a person of note.  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/notable

[3]           Aristotle’s Treatise on Politics, Bk. 5, Ch. 11 (bracketed word added for clarity).

[5]           The big corporations, e.g., Delta Airlines and Coca Cola, are leftist allies, pushing the leftist agenda.  See, e.g., https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/hundreds-of-ceos-companies-launch-attack-against-election-integrity-bills

[6]           See, e.g., this article: US Financial Regulators Moving ‘Very Fast’ to Take on Climate Change, which can be read here: https://www.theepochtimes.com/us-financial-regulators-moving-very-fast-to-take-on-climate-change_3805907.html

[8]           Read more about how mask-wearing destroys the cohesiveness of society, in part three of this article: https://catholiccandle.org/2020/12/01/856/

 

[10]         In his incisive analysis based on his first-hand observations of the U.S. in the 1830s, Alexis De Tocqueville, stressed that the strength of the United States was in its citizens joining together in voluntary associations to accomplish their goals and solving their problems for themselves.  That spirit is the opposite of the spirit of a servile and socialist people, which demands that the government take care of them and solve their problems.  Here is part of De Tocqueville’s analysis of the American people of that time:

 

Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions, constantly form associations.  They have not only commercial and manufacturing companies, in which all take part, but associations of a thousand other kinds – religious, moral, serious, futile, extensive, or restricted, enormous or diminutive.  The Americans make associations to give entertainments, to found establishments for education, to build inns, to construct churches, to diffuse books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; and in this manner they found hospitals, prisons, and schools.  If it be proposed to advance some truth, or to foster some feeling by the encouragement of a great example, they form a society.  Wherever, at the head of some new undertaking, you see the government in France, or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association.

 

Democracy In America, by Alexis De Tocqueville, Volume II, Ch.5.

[11]         St. Thomas Aquinas, On Kingship, bk.1, ch.4 (bracketed words added for clarity).

[12]         Aristotle’s Treatise on Politics, Bk. 5, Ch. 11 (bracketed words added for clarity).

[13]         For a further analysis of lockdowns as a tool to suppress the people, not a virus, read section two of this article: https://catholiccandle.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/lockdowns-are-to-control-people-not-a-virus-2.pdf

 

[20]         Aristotle’s Treatise on Politics, Bk. 5, Ch. 11 (bracketed words added for clarity).

[23]         Read this article: China is installing surveillance cameras outside people’s front doors … and sometimes inside their homes found here: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/27/asia/cctv-cameras-china-hnk-intl/index.html

 

[24]         To learn more about ubiquitous surveillance in Belgium and France, read this article: https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/camera-surveillance-stepped-up-in-belgium-and-france

 

[26]         There are around 11,000 cameras surveilling Atlanta Georgia.   https://www.ajc.com/news/local/real-time-crimefighting-around-000-cameras-watch-over-atlanta/qlF76c7sgdwBvtIa3luX8H/

 

[27]         See e.g., China’s routine electronic surveillance of its people’s phones and other mobile devices.  https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/china-cracks-down-on-citizens-scans-handheld-devices-for-illegal-informatio

 

[28]         German Intelligence Agency spies on its citizens who:

 

v  oppose the “pandemic” lockdowns.  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/germany-puts-anti-lockdown-group-under-surveillance-for-possible-extremist-ties/ar-BB1gboSl

 

v  are so-called “pandemic” deniers.  https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2220022972385/german-intelligence-puts-coronavirus-deniers-under-surveillance

 

[29]         St. Thomas Aquinas, On Kingship, bk.1, ch.4 (bracketed words added for clarity).

[33]         To read how our increasingly-tyrannical government and its allies are corrupting the morals and reason of its people, read this article: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/04/02/empathy-a-tool-for-good-or-for-evil/

 

[37]         Aristotle’s Treatise on Politics, Bk. 5, Ch. 11.

[38]         St. Thomas Aquinas, On Kingship, bk.1, ch.4 (bracketed words added for clarity).

[39]         Aristotle’s Treatise on Politics, Bk. 5, Ch. 11 (Bracketed words added for clarity).

[40]         For example, COVID vaccine maker, Moderna, increased its profits 13-fold during this last year.  https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/covid-19-jab-maker-moderna-posts-13-fold-revenue-increase-thanks-to-vaccine

 

Likewise, Pfizer posted $4.5 billion in profits recently.  https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/04/business/pfizer-covid-vaccine-profits.html

[42]         Aristotle’s Treatise on Politics, Bk. 5, Ch. 11.

[43]         1984, George Orwell, ch.3.

[44]         1984, George Orwell, ch.17.


[46]         St. Thomas Aquinas,
On Kingship, bk.1, ch.4 (bracketed words added for clarity).


[49]         https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/a-year-after-refusing-to-provide-cake-for-gay-wedding-christian-bakery-clos

 

[50]         Aristotle’s Treatise on Politics, Bk. 5, Ch. 11.

[52]         1 St. John, 5:4.

[53]         Ephesians, 6:12.

[54]         Read about Satan’s connection with the Marxists here: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/03/03/black-lives-matters-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx/


[55]         St. Matthew’s Gospel, 5:16.

Black Lives Matter’s Program is the same as that of Satan and Marx

The program of Black Lives Matter is the same program as Satan and Marx

 

The evils of the (so-called) “racial justice” movement have their origins 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 the so-called “racial justice” group, Black Lives Matter

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.    Is revolutionary and is anti-authority;

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 anti-Natural Law.

 

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

 


Examining the key features of Satan’s program


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

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


2.  Satan’s program is revolutionary and is anti-authority.

All authority comes from God.[1]  Satan’s first act was to declare revolution against the government of God, his King.  Satan’s battle cry was – and continues to be – “Non serviam!”

Satan is the original revolutionary and is the father of all revolutionaries.[2]  Satan’s purpose in his first encounter with a human, Eve, was to foment revolution in the human race.  Satan tempted Eve to “go rogue” by disobeying God and by acting in this eternally-serious matter without seeking the guidance of her husband. 


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 chose to divide the angels of heaven by opposing God and His good angels.


4. Satan seeks to achieve his goals by sowing discontent, envy, and discord.

God promotes contentment and harmony.[3]  He teaches us to bear our crosses joyfully out of love for Him.  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”.[4]

Satan is the opposite: he promotes discontent wherever he can.  Satan especially promotes discontent between persons – the deadly sin of envy.  For example, Satan fomented Cain’s envy of (and murder of) his brother, Abel.  Genesis, 4:1-9.

As another example of Satan promoting discord between persons: 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 and (Satan told her): “God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof … you shall be as Gods”.  Genesis, 3:5.


5. Satan seeks to achieve his goals by promoting hatred.

As St. John writes, God is love.[5]  Love is the great source of unity.  Satan is full of hatred and he promotes hatred through all of his works.  Satan strives to be the contrary of God, as hatred is the contrary of love.[6]


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 do this.


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

Our Lord is the Truth and His disciples stand in the truth.  Satan is the father of lies.[7]  Like any liar, Satan says whatever he thinks will be to his advantage, lying whenever it suits him.


8. Satan’s program is anti-Natural Law.

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

 

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.”[8]

 

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”.[9]

  “Communism abolishes … all religion.”[10]

  Religion is merely a class tool which the rich use to oppress other people.[11]

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.[12]

 

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

Like Satan, Marx was fundamentally a revolutionary.  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.[13]

 

Marx strongly promoted not only revolution 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.[14]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.[15]

 

Pope Pius XI warned that the “preachers of Communism are proficient in exploiting racial antagonisms, political divisions, and oppositions.”[16]  In a different place, Pope Pius XI warns that “Communism teaches and seeks … unrelenting class warfare”.[17] 

 

This Communist teaching and goal are exactly the opposite of what good men would do.  Pope Pius XI teaches the truth that good men should strive to abolish class conflict and produce harmony and cooperation between men, a goal directly the opposite of communism’s goal.[18] 

 

Pope Pius XI adds in another place, that not only do Communists seek to increase hostility between the classes of society, but they attack and seek to annihilate anyone who seeks harmony between classes.[19]

 

 

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

 

Marx sought to stir up dissatisfaction with everything, by promoting (as he put it) a “ruthless criticism of all that exists”.[20]

 

Marx sought to mobilize workers to battle against the rich.  He declared: “Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.”[21]  Marx promoted the workers’ violent destruction of property to express their anger with the rich for (supposedly) “exploiting” them.[22]

 

 

5.   Like Satan, Marx promoted hatred.

 

Marx wanted to be well-known for something and, since (as he explained) he could not be the Creator, he chose to be a destroyer and to “destroy worlds”.[23]

 

Love is contrary to hatred.  A person seeks union with what he loves and he seeks separation from, or destruction of, what he hates.[24]  Marx was full of hate and sought to “destroy worlds”. 

 

Further, Marx hated the rich and sought to overthrow them.[25]  Marx despised various ethnic groups.[26]

 

Marx not only hated and sought the destruction of those groups he opposed, but he also urged others to hate and destroy those groups too.[27]  Like Satan’s program, Marx’s teaching and movement was built on hatred.[28]

 

Pope Pius XI warned that Marxism fundamentally involves “violent hate and destruction”.[29]

 

 

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

 

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

“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society.  But Communism abolishes eternal truths, 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.”[30]

Instead of moral principles, Marx taught that anything that advanced the class struggle was good and anything that impeded the class struggle was bad.[31]

 

 

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

 

Just as Satan is the Father of Lies and he lies when expedient, Marx also rejected the moral principle that lying is wrong and he lied to achieve his goals.  Marx declared that “Communism abolishes eternal truths”[32]

 

Marx not only approved of lying to achieve his political goals, but he also lied in his family life.  For example, Marx had a deceitful affair with the family’s housekeeper and lied about it.[33]  To cover up his infidelity, Marx persuaded Engels (co-author of the Communist Manifesto) and others to lie and to help him cover up the affair.  Id.

 

 

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

 

With Marx in league with Satan and seeking to “destroy worlds” and to defy God (see the above quotes), Marx also sought to destroy the Natural Law,[34] which is a key aspect of God’s creation.  For example:

 

  Marx sought to abolish private property[35] even though private property is part of the Natural Law[36] and is willed by God.[37]

 

  Marx sought to abolish marriage and the family[38] even though those institutions are part of the Natural Law[39].

 

  Marx sought to abolish virtue and morality (as shown in the quotes above), even though they are part of the Natural Law.

 

  Marx sought to abolish countries, patriotism, and love of one’s own country[40] even though patriotism is a virtue and is part of the Natural Law.[41] 

 

Summary of this section: Marx closely imitated Satan and followed Satan’s evil program.

 

 

Before connecting Marx’s program (in the section above) to the present situation in the world, let’s call to mind a little background.

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

I shall come [viz., in 1929] to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, by the Holy Father and all the bishops of the world.  If my request is heeded, Russia will be converted and there will be peace.  If not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, provoking wars and persecution against the Church.[42]

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

When we look around us, we see powerful proof that Russia is spreading its Marxists errors everywhere.  Below, we take one example: the so-called “racial justice” movement of Black Lives Matter (“BLM”). 

Let us compare the program of Satan and Marx to the program of BLM and what its founders or leaders disclose about themselves and/or BLM.


The Program of Black Lives Matter – as promoted by its leaders

Two of the founders of the Black Lives Matter (“BLM”) movement claim they are “trained Marxists”.[43]  BLM activists call each other “comrade”[44] and use the clenched-fist salute, like the Marxists do.[45]  Patrisse Cullors, one of the BLM founders, revealed what appears to be her very strong admiration for the thoughts and “wisdom” of the ruthless Communist murderer, Chinese dictator Mao Zedong.[46]

Let’s examine more ways in which the program of BLM and/or what is promoted by its founders or leaders track the program of Marx and Satan.


1. Like Satan and Marx, BLM is inherently anti-God. 

Catholics can see this in the words of a BLM founder that she and her comrades practice paganism and are guided by “spirits” that Catholics would recognize as satanic.

Cullors states that they have spirits “work through” them “to get the work that we need to get done”.  Cullors added that she “started to feel personally connected and responsible and accountable to them, both from a deeply political place, but also from a deeply spiritual place.”  Cullors added that they pray to the spirits and pour libations to them.  She stated that at its core, BLM is a spiritual movement.[47]

Our Catholic Faith tells us that these “libations” are not poured to God but to Satan.  Pagan gods are devils.  Psalm, 95:5.

BLM founder Cullors also stated how she practices the African pagan religion of Ifá, and sets up altars to the spirits in her office.[48]

We should not be surprised by the connection between Satan and the Marxists.  Like Marx himself, his disciples hate the notion of an infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good God.  These Divine attributes are the opposite of their materialist, gnostic and egalitarian doctrine. 

Since Marxist doctrine condemns all superiority, it considers an almighty and loving God to be an oppressor, as is shown in Marx’s own writings.[49]  Instead, Marxists identify with Satan, who is an inferior, created being, a damned angel, and the (supposed) “victim” of the Creator’s eternal justice and thus one who is “oppressed,” “disenfranchised,” “discriminated against”, and “marginalized to the peripheries”.   

2. Like Satan and Marx, BLM is inherently revolutionary and anti-authority.

One of the three BLM founders, Alicia Garza, describes her larger goal as “dismantling the organizing principle of this society”.[50]  This is like Marx’s call for the forcible overthrow of “all existing social conditions.”[51]

Patrisse Cullors, another one of the BLM co-founders, is particularly fond of using the Marxist chant that “we have nothing to lose but our chains”.[52]  (This is part of the popularized Marxist chant: “Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.”)[53]

BLM uses the customary Marxist language of characterizing blacks as waging a liberation struggle.[54]

Following some August 2020 riots in Chicago, BLM organizer, Ariel Atkins, refused to condemn anything the protesters did, saying:

“There’s no such thing as a bad protester”.[55]

This echoes Marx (quoted above) promoting the “proletariat destroying imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze ….”[56]

BLM’s Atkins added that there should be no police to stop the riots.  Here are Atkins’s words:

Also, (we’re) demanding that police be defunded.  Police should not be here. They should not exist ….[57]

BLM’s Atkins added that the goal was “eventually getting rid of all funding [for police] and using that money for education, jobs, housing, health care and more”.[58]  Atkins, like others promoting Marxism, seeks to change the way society responds to bad conduct.  Instead of treating rioting and theft as a law enforcement matter, BLM pushes society to respond by instead offering more “social services”. 

In this way, BLM shows that it seeks to fulfill Communist Goal #38 (of 45 total goals) as read into the U.S. Congressional Record in 1963:

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].[59]

In June 2020, BLM Chicago declared that it sought to end all policing and prisons as well as all authority of fathers in their families.  Here is how BLM phrased its revolutionary goals:

Stay in the streets! The system is throwing every diversionary and de-mobilizing tactic at us.

We are fighting to end policing and prisons as a system which nececistates [sic] fighting white supremacist capitalist heteropatriarchial [sic] imperialism.[60]

This BLM opposition to “heteropatriarchial imperialism” is opposition to the authority of a father over his family.  This Marxist goal is a rejection both of the Natural Law and the teaching of the Catholic Church, e.g., where St. Paul commands: “Wives, be subject to your husbands”.  Colossians, 3:18.   

Black Lives Matters not only encourages protesting but encourages looting too, as shown during the 2020 riots.  Black Lives Matter Chicago organized a demonstration on Aug 10, 2020 in which protesters held a banner that read, “Our futures have been looted from us … loot back.”[61]  This BLM demonstration was held to show support for the looters arrested by the police earlier that day.[62]

Here, BLM shows that it seeks to fulfill Communist Goal #42 (of 45 total goals) as read into the U.S. Congressional Record in 1963:

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use “united force” to solve economic, political or social problems.[63]


3. Like Satan and Marx, BLM seeks to divide people and classes.

BLM seeks to divide people into antagonistic classes, setting supposed “victims” against supposed “oppressors”, each hostile to the other.  For example:
 

  Pitting women against men: BLM declares: “We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.” [64]

  Pitting wives against husbands:  BLM declares:We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.”[65]

  Pitting blacks against whites: BLM declares: “We are unapologetically Black in our positioning.[66]  In affirming that Black Lives Matter, we need not qualify our position.  To love and desire freedom and justice for ourselves is a prerequisite for wanting the same for others.  We see ourselves as part of the global Black family.”[67]


BLM exemplifies what Pope Pius XI warned about, viz., that the “preachers of Communism are proficient in exploiting racial antagonisms and political divisions and oppositions.”[68]

Through Marxism and BLM, social cohesion diminishes, and society’s mutual trust and goodwill are destroyed.  Society increasingly moves towards a dangerous and more extreme political polarization.


4. Like Satan and Marx, BLM promotes discontent, envy, and discord.

BLM material is full of declarations of “victimhood” and being oppressed by the “privileged” enemies they are fighting.  A few of those quotes are used in this article. 

BLM leaders, such as founder Alicia Garza, focus on power and getting their way over their enemies who are steeped in power and “privilege”.  For example, here are Garza’s words in a speech she gave in the state of Maine:

Power is very much about deciding who gets to make decisions and who doesn’t. Power is about shaping the story of who we are, and who we can be and who we’re not.  Power is about deciding where resources go and where they don’t go, and why.  But most of all, power is about making sure that there are consequences when people disappoint you.

I believe we all have work to do to keep dismantling the organizing principle of this society, which creates inequities for everyone, even white people.

Maine can be a leader for the rest of this country, on how to fight — obliterate, take it all the way out — white nationalism.  Maine can be a leader in showing the rest of the country, how to really be a hero, a hero that is courageous enough to dismantle what is organizing the structures in our society to keep some people with, some people without, to keep some people together, and tear some families apart.[69]


5. Like Satan and Marx, BLM promotes hatred.

BLM fills its followers with the idea they are “victims” and should hate those who are supposedly doing evil to them.  The government and the societal “system” which they fight are their enemy.  BLM says this “system” kills them unjustly, throws them wrongfully into prison, lies about them, turns their friends against them, wrongfully extradites illegal aliens, bombs them, beats them, and inflicts pain sadistically on them.  Here is one way BLM says this to stir up hatred and the desire for revenge:

What has the system done historically in response to Black liberation movements: assassinations, imprisonment, rumor spreading, creating enemies out of friends, exiling folks, bombings, beatings, torture.

We see this happening now.

This is the system fighting back.[70]


6. Like Satan and Marx, BLM is result-oriented and self-interested.  BLM neither acts according to immutable principles nor encourages its followers to do so.

BLM is not devoted to the truth and to reality.  For example, BLM says that the truth of a person’s gender does not matter but only what gender the person “feels” like he is.  Here is one way BLM states this: 

All Black lives matter, regardless of actual or perceived sexual identity, gender identity, gender expression, economic status, ability, disability, religious beliefs or disbeliefs, immigration status, or location.[71]

Alicia Garza, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter, stated that BLM’s focus should be on power and doing whatever is necessary to win, with no moral restraints.  Here are her words: “the struggle right now is not a moral one, it is a struggle over power”.[72]

BLM leader Ariel Atkins declared that principles (i.e., morals) should not restrain people from doing whatever is expedient.  Here are her words:

I think (the looting) is fine.  People protest however they need to.  People do whatever they need.  …

There’s no such thing as a bad protester.[73]

BLM’s Atkins called the looting “reparations”.[74]  According to one news report, this looting was planned ahead of time and involved U-hauls rented to carry away the stolen goods.[75]

Marxists hate the Church’s moral law, which is based on the Natural Law, and both are objective societal principles which are true for all times, places, and peoples.  By contrast, Marxists teach that morality is relative, as Marx declared that Communists “abolish” all morals. 

7. Like Satan and Marx, BLM impliedly rejects any obligation to tell the truth.

Alicia Garza, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter, stated that BLM’s focus should be on gaining power and doing whatever is necessary to win, with no moral restraints.  Here are her words: “the struggle right now is not a moral one, it is a struggle over power”.[76]  This impliedly shows that the BLM Marxists agree with Karl Marx that seeking power and revolution, they reject any moral obligation to tell the truth.[77]


8. Like Satan and Marx, BLM opposes the Natural Law.

Like Satan and Marx, BLM fights the Natural Law.  For example:

  BLM is anti-private property.  For example, BLM leader Ariel Atkins declared: “I think (the looting) is fine. People protest however they need to.”[78]

  BLM is pro-abortion.  Here is one way BLM stated its position: “We deserve and thus we demand reproductive justice that gives us autonomy over our bodies”.[79]  This is typical leftist jargon for demanding abortion.

  BLM promotes unnatural impurity and views natural purity as the enemy.  Here is one way BLM stated its position:

We foster a queeraffirming network.  When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).[80]

  BLM promotes the “transgender” delusion.  Here is one way BLM stated its position:

We make space for transgender brothers and sisters to participate and lead.

We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender [meaning a person acknowledges his real gender] privilege and uplift Black trans folk [meaning a person claiming to be the other gender], especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.[81]

Here, BLM shows that it seeks to 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.[82]

  BLM is anti-family.  Here is one way BLM stated its position:

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.[83]

Here, BLM shows that it seeks to fulfill Communist Goals #40 & #41 (of 45 total goals) as read into the U.S. Congressional Record in 1963:

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents.  Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.[84]

Marxists hate the Natural Law and Catholic concept of the family as society’s basic unit, founded on the sacrament of marriage (as the Church teaches) and transmitting morality, religion, tradition and property from one generation to the next.  Marxists see the family as an oppressive institution that must be destroyed. 

Marxists hate the institution of marriage defined as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, open to children, and responsible for their education.  Marxists hate marriage because it reinforces morality.  Marxists favor “free love” and impurity.  

 

Conclusion

Like all Marxist groups, the BLM movement goes against all reason, morality, decency, and most importantly, the Catholic Faith. 

We must defend the truth.  Now, more than ever, it is obvious that God is testing our fidelity to truth and our precious Faith.  We have to remind ourselves that God is in charge and is allowing these current events to happen for His greater honor and glory.  He wants these events to be meritorious for us and the means for our sanctification.



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

[2]           Revolution is always wrong.  Faithful and informed Catholics are not revolutionaries.  For further explanation of this principle, read this article: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/02/01/revolution-is-in-the-air/

 

[3]           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.

 

Eccles. 25:1-2.

[4]           Here is the longer quote of what St. John the Baptist taught the soldiers:

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).

[5]           1 St. John, 4:8.

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

 

[7]           Here are Our Lord’s words:

 

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).

[8]           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

 

[9]           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).

 

[10]         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).

 

[11]         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).

 

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

[13]         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

 

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

 

[15]         Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.

 

[16]         Divini RedemptorisOn 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[18]         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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[20]         Here is the longer quote from Marx:

 

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

 

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

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

 

[22]         Here is the longer quote from Marx:

 

The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual labourers, then by the workpeople of a factory, then by the operative of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them.  They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.

 

Communist Manifesto, Chapter I.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Worlds I would destroy forever,

Since I can create no world,

Since my call they notice never,
Coursing dumb in magic whirl. […]

 

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

 

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

 

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


[25]         Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.


[27]         Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[31]         Vladimir Lenin, a faithful student of Marxist thought, explained this moral expediency this way, in a speech he gave to the Young Communist League:

 

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

 

In what sense do we reject ethics, reject morality?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[35]         Marx declared: “[T]he theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”  Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.

[36]         Encyclical, Quod Apostolici muneris, Pope Leo XIII, Dec. 28, 1878, quoted at Denz. §1851.

[37]         Summa, IIa IIae, Q.32, a.5, ad 2.

[38]         Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.


[39]         Summa Supp., Q.41, a.1.

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

 

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

Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.

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

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

[43]         Listen to the words of one of the BLM founders here:            https://twitter.com/davereaboi/status/1274336621702373377

[44]         For example, in its credo, “What we believe”, BLM declares:

Every day, we recommit to healing ourselves and each other, and to co-creating alongside comrades, allies, and family a culture where each person feels seen, heard, and supported.

(Bold emphasis added.)  This BLM credo used to be found on the BLM website here: https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/  However, beginning in about June 2020, conservatives noticed the BLM credo and its overt Marxism.  Conservatives began quoting the BLM credo to warn the public and to show the encroaching Marxism throughout western nations. 

 

In approximately September 2020, BLM removed this credo and substituted a more generic one in its place.  However, here is an archive copy of BLM’s Marxist credohttps://web.archive.org/web/20200917194804/https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

 

[45]         Here are many photos of BLM using the Marxist clenched fist salute: https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/black-lives-matter

 

[46]         Chairman Mao Zedong wrote his revolutionary texts in a book which the Chinese Communist Party forced the Chinese military, citizens, and schoolchildren to read and memorize in the 1960’s – 1970’s.  It came to be known in China as the “Little Red Book”.  In a speech, Cullors was praising a book from a fellow radical like herself (Eric Mann).  She agreed enthusiastically with an assessment of Mann’s book, viz., "It’s like Mao’s Red Book…."   https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/blm-founders-video-from-10-years-ago-reveals-her-love-of-maos-red-book_3815297.html

 

Here is a video of Cullors praising Chairman Mao’s “Little Red Book”:  https://rumble.com/vgn26v-blm-founder-compares-book-to-maos-red-book.html

 

[47]         All of the quotes in this paragraph are found here: https://thenewamerican.com/hail-satan-after-terrorizing-churches-blm-witchcraft-exposed/

[48]         The Cullors interview is found here: https://thepolitic.org/activist-friend-comrade-interview-with-patrisse-cullors-co-founder-of-black-lives-matter/

 

Here is a fuller extract from this interview:

Q.           In the same vein of formative experiences, religion has played a large role in your life. I was wondering if you could tell us about how you started to bring Ifá into your life and how you made the decision to bring its rituals to your rallies?  

A.           I actually started to study Ifá, maybe…in my early twenties? And I felt really connected to the tradition. One, because it comes from Nigeria—from the Yoruba people in particular—and I felt incredibly connected to West Africa. I think the other part was that it was really practical.  I come from a Jehovah’s Witness background, which is an incredibly conservative religion, and an incredibly conservative experience.  I needed a tradition that was more generous to people and to humanity. I needed a tradition that was rooted in African traditions, and so I just naturally started.  It’s something to know about me: I try to bring my whole self into every experience I have.

So I started to make little ancestor altars in my office when I worked at the Strategy Center, to create a little space of ancestors with little pictures. I thought it was really important to note that we stand on the shoulders of giants in our movement, other civil rights leaders who either were assassinated or died. I think when we started to do chants across the country—that we must love each other, support each other, we have nothing to lose but our chains—I would naturally end it with “Ase,” which is like Amen, but in Yoruba. I’m not the one that coined “Ase”; it’s from the old language.  But it became really popularized in our movement to be present and to be spiritual, and showing that unapologetically.

[49]         Here are examples of Marx’s words about God the (so-called) “oppressor”:

 

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

 

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

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

[54]         Here is how the BLM credo stated this in 2020:

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

The Black Lives Matter Global Network is as powerful as it is because of our membership, our partners, our supporters, our staff, and you.  Our continued commitment to liberation for all Black people means we are continuing the work of our ancestors and fighting for our collective freedom because it is our duty.

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

 

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

[56]         Communist Manifesto, Chapter I (quoted here with an “ing” added to the word “destroy” for grammatical smoothness.)


[57]         Parenthetical word in the original.  Quoted in the Chicago Tribune and available at this link: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-chicago-downtown-looting-black-lives-matter-protest-20200811-lvejnsexhbgtjfixcgioih7dn4-story.html

[58]         Parenthetical word in the original.  Bracketed words added to show the context.  Quoted in the Chicago Tribune and available at this link: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-chicago-downtown-looting-black-lives-matter-protest-20200811-lvejnsexhbgtjfixcgioih7dn4-story.html

[59]         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.


[60]         BLMChicago @BLMChi 11:09 AM · Jun 16, 2020, found here: https://twitter.com/BLMChi/status/1272924202182610945


[63]         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.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[66]         It is interesting how “racial justice” leftists sometimes agree with persons whom the mainstream media calls “white supremacists”.  For example, recently, Washington D.C.’s Museum of African American History and Culture (which is part of the taxpayer-funded Smithsonian Institute), posted the statement that “white culture” means things like “nuclear family,” “self-reliance,” “rigid time schedule” and “delayed gratification.”  These quotations from the museum’s statements are as quoted here: https://www.theepochtimes.com/anti-racist-racists_3458404.html

This museum’s characterization implies that good habits, virtue and success are foreign to blacks.  Notice how the so-called “white supremacists” (who are abhorred by BLM) believe like BLM does, that blacks as a race are unable to rise above bad habits in order to excel.

Catholic Candle completely disagrees with this position.  We hold that blacks, like everyone else, can live according to good habits, reason, and virtue.

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

 

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


[68]         Divini RedemptorisOn 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.

[70]         BLMChicago @BLMChi, date June 16, 2020, found here: https://twitter.com/BLMChi/status/1272926656844435456

[71]         Note: the capitalization of the “A” at the beginning of this quote has been added. 
Quoted from https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/ accessed on June 4, 2020.  

 

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

 


[73]         The words in parentheses are in the original.  Quoted in the Chicago Tribune and available at this link: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-chicago-downtown-looting-black-lives-matter-protest-20200811-lvejnsexhbgtjfixcgioih7dn4-story.html

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[82]         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.

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

 

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


[84]         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.

 

Revolution is in the air

Revolution seems to be “in the air” and this has been true during much of 2020.  There were riots, burning, destruction, and looting across the U.S. (and in other places in the world) especially in the Summer 2020. 

Here is one account of the leftist demonstrations in Seattle on January 20, 2021, the day Joe Biden was sworn in as U.S. president:

The demonstrators, mostly clad in black, spray-painted anarchy symbols on buildings, broke windows and marched under a banner that read, “We are ungovernable.”

“We don’t want Biden – we want revenge for police murders, imperialist wars, and fascist massacres,” read another banner that the group marched under.  …  The crowd called for the abolition of ICE[1] and, outside the federal immigration court, several people set fire to an American flag ….[2]

There was not only burning and looting during the leftist riots in 2020 but anarchists even established a long-term violent occupation of part of Seattle, Washington, excluding police from the area, and re-naming the captured territory “the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone” (a/k/a “CHAZ”).

Further, six men reportedly planned to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer, the leftist governor of Michigan who was infamous for her abusive lockdowns of her state.[3]

Also, the mainstream media, the Democrats, and some others blame then-President Trump for inciting a supposed “coup attempt” on January 6, 2021.[4]  They blame Trump, despite him telling his followers that day to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”[5] about the election fraud.  

On January 6, 2021, while Trump was speaking to his supporters at a different location, some hooligans already began some lawless activity at the U.S. capitol building.[6]  It appears that leftist activists[7] led the violence and successfully got a tiny percentage of Trump supporters to follow their lead, e.g., following those leftists into the Capitol building through a smashed window.  One of the Black Lives Matter founders had previously put out a call on her Twitter feed telling her followers that they should disguise themselves as Trump supporters at post-election events.[8]

All these events raise the general question:

Is it ever permissible for Catholics to be revolutionaries?

Let us examine the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on this question.


We must distinguish between resisting and revolting. 

When someone in authority commands something evil, we must never “obey” that evil command.[9]   But it is one thing to resist that evil command (as we must) and it is a further step to use that evil command as a basis for rejecting the ruler’s lawful authority as such.  This further step is to revolt.

For example, the American revolutionaries considered it evil that King George III imposed taxes on them without their consent, and that he did many other things to which they objected.  But the American revolutionaries not only resisted such commands of King George but also used the commands as a (purported) “justification” for their revolution. 

In their Declaration of Independence, the revolutionaries objected to many things such as their king “quartering large bodies of armed troops among us”; “imposing taxes on us without our consent”; and “depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury”.

After listing their grievances, the American revolutionaries then did what all revolutionaries do: they said that their ruler was to blame for their own revolution because his conduct caused him to lose his status as their king.  The American revolutionaries declared that King George III, “whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”[10]

The American revolutionaries did what revolutionaries always do: they declared that their ruler had lost all authority over them.  Here are their words:

[T]hese United Colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved.[11]

Finally, the American revolutionaries then did something else which revolutionaries always do: they declared that it was their right and duty to revolt:

[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations … evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is [the colonies’] right, it is their duty, to throw off such government.[12]

This is what it is to be a revolutionary: to reject and resist not just particular (perhaps evil) commands but to also reject the very authority of his ruler.

The American revolutionaries followed the same pattern as countless other revolutionaries, e.g., in France, Russia, and Latin America.[13]  In all human history there is not even one revolution[14] which the Catholic Church recognizes to have been praiseworthy and not sinful.[15]

In summary, revolutionaries follow a common pattern:

1.    they assert that their ruler committed wrongs (whether actual wrongs or merely imagined); and then

2.    they use such wrongs as a basis to declare that their ruler’s own conduct has resulted in his losing his authority to rule them.


The Cristeros were Not Revolutionaries

On a superficial level, a person might have the false impression that the Mexican Cristeros were revolutionaries because they took up arms against the anti-Catholic Mexican government in the 1920s.  But the Cristeros’ goal was to defend their priests, their churches, and the Catholicism of their families.  The Cristeros resisted the many wrongs committed by their anti-Catholic, Masonic government.  By successfully taking up arms, the Cristeros prevented the anti-Catholic government from further harming them unjustly (arresting them, killing them, etc.). But unlike persons who are revolutionaries, the Cristeros never used their government’s wrongs as a basis to declare that their government had lost all authority over them.[16]  Instead, by taking up arms, the Cristeros merely prevented their lawful but anti-Catholic government from doing the harm it intended.

The American Revolutionaries could have – but did not – take the same approach as the Cristeros.  That is, the American Revolutionaries could have resisted even by force of arms any wrongs that were severe enough while still acknowledging King George of England as their rightful king.


Revolution is Always Wrong

It is un-Catholic to be a revolutionary.  All authority comes from God, regardless of the method by which a ruler is chosen to wield civil or religious power.  Here is how St. Paul teaches this truth:

[T]here is no power but from God:  and those [powers] that are, are ordained of God.  Therefore, he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.  And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation.  …  For [the ruler] is God’s minister.  …  Wherefore, be subject of necessity, not only for [the ruler’s] wrath, but also for conscience’s sake

Romans, ch.13, vv. 1-2 & 4-5 (emphasis added).[17]

Pope Pius IX faithfully echoed St. Paul:

[A]ll authority comes from God. Whoever resists authority resists the ordering made by God Himself, consequently achieving his own condemnation; disobeying authority is always sinful except when an order is given which is opposed to the laws of God and the Church.

Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846, §22.

Pope Pius IX taught this same doctrine in his infallible condemnation of the following proposition:

It is permissible to refuse obedience to legitimate rulers, and even to revolt against them.

Quanta Cura, proposition #63 (emphasis added).[18]

Pope Leo XIII taught the same doctrine as St. Paul and Pope Pius IX:

If, however, it should ever happen that public power is exercised by rulers rashly and beyond measure, the doctrine of the Catholic Church does not permit rising up against them on one’s own terms, lest quiet and order be more and more disturbed, or lest society receive greater harm therefrom.[19]

Because it is sinful to even willfully desire to sin, Pope Leo XIII taught that even the “desire for revolution” is a “vice”.  Auspicato Concessu, §24. 

Although revolution is forbidden, Pope Leo XIII gave us the remedies of patience, prayer, and resistance to the particular evil commands of a bad ruler.  Here are his words:

Whenever matters have come to such a pass that no other hope of a solution is evident, [the doctrine of the Catholic Church] teaches that a remedy is to be hastened through the merits of Christian patience, and by urgent prayers to God. 

But if the decisions of legislators and rulers should sanction or order something that is contrary to divine and natural law, the dignity and duty of the Christian name and the opinion of the apostles urge that “we ought to obey God, rather than men” (Acts 5:29).[20]

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Church, offers the same remedy to persons who suffer the evil of a bad ruler:

[S]ometimes God permits evil rulers to afflict good men.  This affliction is for the good of such good men, as St. Paul says above [ch.8, v.28]: “All things work for the good, for those who love God.”[21] 


The Example of the Saints shows Revolution is Wrong

Look at the example of Catholics, including great saints like St. Sebastian, who served bravely and faithfully even in the army of the pagan emperors of Rome.  They did not revolt, even when their emperor openly sought to kill all Catholics (although, of course, those soldier-saints did not aid in the persecution of Catholics). 

Here is Pope Gregory XVI’s praise for those Roman soldier-saints, who were faithful to God first, but also to their emperor (whenever the emperor’s commands were not themselves evil):

[T]he early Christians … deserved well of the emperors and of the safety of the state even while persecution raged.  This they proved splendidly by their fidelity in performing perfectly and promptly whatever they were commanded which was not opposed to their religion, and even more by their constancy and the shedding of their blood in battle. “Christian soldiers”, says St. Augustine, “served an infidel emperor.  When the issue of Christ was raised, they acknowledged no one but the One who is in heaven.  They distinguished the eternal Lord from the temporal lord, but were also subject to the temporal lord for the sake of the eternal Lord.” 

St. Mauritius, the unconquered martyr and leader of the Theban legion had this in mind when, as St. Eucharius reports, he answered the emperor in these words: “We are your soldiers, Emperor, but also servants of God, and this we confess freely . . . and now this final necessity of life has not driven us into rebellion.”  … 

Indeed, the faith of the early Christians shines more brightly, if we consider with Tertullian, that since the Christians were not lacking in numbers and in troops, they could have acted as foreign enemies.  “We are but of yesterday”, he says, “yet we have filled all your cities, islands, fortresses, municipalities, assembly places, the camps themselves, the tribes, the divisions, the palace, the senate, the forum.  …  For what war should we not have been fit and ready even if unequal in forces – we who are so glad to be cut to pieces – were it not, of course, that in our doctrine we would have been permitted more to be killed rather than to kill?  …  [Y]ou have fewer enemies because of the multitude of Christians.”

These beautiful examples of the unchanging subjection to the rulers necessarily proceeded from the most holy precepts of the Christian religion.[22]


Summary of this article so far

As shown above, it is Catholic dogma that revolution is always wrong but that resisting the particular evil commands of our ruler is permitted and is sometimes necessary.  When resisting is just, such resistance might include taking up arms and fighting the government soldiers who seek to enforce the ruler’s evil orders.  The Cristeros did this in Mexico.

If the evil is great enough, the resisters may even place themselves beyond the reach of the harm which the ruler seeks to unjustly inflict on them.  The Cristeros did this, succeeding in defending three-quarters of Mexico from the anti-Catholic harm attempted by Mexico’s Masonic government.[23]

However, even when strong resistance is justified by the greatness of the evil attempted by the ruler, those persons resisting the evil are not permitted to revolt, i.e., to declare that the ruler has ceased to be their ruler.  The ruler does not lose his authority in principle, even when the resisters prevent him by force of arms from accomplishing in practice the evil he wishes to do.  This is the meaning of Quanta Cura’s infallible condemnation of the assertion that “It is permissibleto revolt”.  (See above.)

Regarding the early soldier-saints fighting in the Roman army (see above) even while the emperor martyred Catholics: those Catholic soldier-saints served their emperor faithfully in honorable activities but never aided the Roman persecution of Catholics.  In those quotations above, St. Augustine, Pope Gregory XVI, and the other authorities praise those soldier-saints for not revolting but do not address the option of armed resistance since those soldier-saints of Rome did not choose to do what the Cristeros did, viz., defend themselves by force of arms, (although without revolting). 

A note about a different but related issue: determining whether a ruler is the legitimate ruler

Above, we see that Catholics must never revolt against their legitimate ruler (although they must resist his evil commands).  However, a person can ask: “how do we know when a ruler is legitimate?”

This article does not lay out principles from which we can know in all cases if a ruler is legitimate (and thus has authority over us).  There are many ways a ruler might not be the legitimate ruler.  Here is an easy case of a ruler being illegitimate:

When the head of a foreign, attacking army first lands on a country’s soil and immediately declares himself the legitimate ruler of the country simply because he is there and is strong, it is easy to see that he is a usurper and not a rightful, legitimate ruler of the country he is attacking.  The people of that country can justly deny his authority over them and fight against him to try to expel him from their country.


Is Biden our legitimate president (with authority over us)?

The legitimacy of a ruler is currently a very pertinent question because there is much evidence from which to conclude that Joe Biden and the leftists stole the 2020 presidential election from President Trump.[24]  So then is Joe Biden the legitimate U.S. president wielding the executive authority of the presidency?

That is a difficult question, involving many facts of which we have incomplete knowledge.  However, it seems that he is the U.S. president, wielding the authority of a president because:

  A person becomes president by being sworn in as provided by the U.S. Constitution.  Joe Biden has been sworn in as president.

  Even with the apparent election fraud, it seems more accurate to say that Biden has become president through fraudulently stealing the election, rather than that he is an imposter who falsely poses as president.

  If Biden weren’t the president, then who would be president?  Trump does not claim to be president and does not claim that Biden is not president.  Rather, Trump claims (apparently correctly) that Biden stole the presidency (i.e., he became president) through fraud. 

Further, whatever Biden does while acting as president would be enforced and implemented by other, lower government officials who do have lawful authority over us.  We would have to recognize their lawful authority (when they are not commanding something sinful, of course).


Conclusion

Faithful and informed Catholics are not revolutionaries.  We must obey those in authority over us when they command something which is not sinful.

Any abuse we cannot avoid from our legitimate authorities we should face with prayer, patience, and our best efforts to vote, stay informed, instruct our children and fellow citizens, as well as work in other ways to improve the quality of our leaders.

However, our obedience extends only to those who legitimately have authority over us.  We do not have to obey those who falsely claim to have authority.

Even though Biden (apparently) stole the 2020 presidential election, he is apparently still the legitimate U.S. president, wielding the authority of the U.S. presidency.

May God help us!



[1]           “ICE” in an acronym standing for the U.S. agency Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
 

[9]           For a careful examination of true and false obedience, read this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/the-false-obedience-of-cowardly-and-confused-catholics.html

 

[10]         Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

[11]         Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

[12]         Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

[13]         To read how Masonic revolution swept throughout Latin America, read the sketches of the political histories of the individual countries, in this book: Latin America: A Sketch of its Glorious Catholic Roots and a Snapshot of its Present, by the Editors of Quanta Cura Press, ©2016.

[14]         Generally, political revolt is called by the name “sedition”, whereas revolt against the Catholic Church is called “schism”.  But at the root of all such revolts, there is the same “non serviam! which echoes that of Satan, the father of all revolutionaries.

 

[15]         If there could ever have been a place and circumstances where revolution could have appeared justified, it would have been a civil revolution by Catholics in newly-apostate England, where the English government inflicted horrors and injustices of every type upon the Catholics.  The torture, imprisonment, extreme suffering, and martyrdom inflicted on Catholics and the outrageous confiscation of Catholic property seemed to many as something impossible to bear.  See, e.g., Chapters 1-3 of Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot, by Fr. John Gerard, S.J., Quanta Cura Press.  This book is a fascinating contemporaneous account of the Anglican and Puritan persecutions of Catholics during the reign of King James I, which is the context of the Gunpowder Plot.

 

Because of the Anglicans’ and Puritans’ shocking treatment of Catholics, Guy Fawkes and a few other Catholics devised the Gunpowder Plot to blow-up the Parliament Building when King James I was there with the rest of England’s political leaders.  However, the two consecutive popes of the time, as well as all of the Jesuit superiors and priests in England all strongly forbade Catholics to take part in such plots or otherwise to revolt against their rightful (but bad) king, James I. 

 

In his contemporaneous account of the Gunpowder Plot and the savage persecutions leading up to this plot, Fr. John Gerard explains:

 

All Catholics received strict commandment from the See Apostolic, that in no case they should stir or attempt anything against His Majesty [viz., King James I of England] or the State [viz., England], and this both from Pope Clement VIII, of pious memory, and from Paulus Vtus [viz., Pope Paul V] that now sitteth in the Chair, who both before and since his assumption to that supreme dignity of governing the Church of Christ, hath showed [sic] himself most earnest to procure the quiet, safety, and security of our Sovereign [viz., King James I], … [and by ordering] that no Catholic people should go about to interrupt or trouble the same [viz., King James I of England] by their impatient proceedings ….

 

Id., page 120 (bracketed words added for clarity; note: In this quotation, Fr. Gerard uses “Vtus” which is the Roman numeral “V” (five) plus the last three letters of the Latin word “Quintus”, meaning “fifth”).                                                             

[16]         To read more on the Cristeros resistance to their anti-Catholic government’s oppression, read Latin America: A Sketch of its Glorious Catholic Roots and a Snapshot of its Present, by the Editors of Quanta Cura Press, pp. 40-42, ©2016.

[17]         God also declares: “By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things; by Me princes rule, and the mighty decree justice.”  Proverbs, 8:15-16.

 

[18]         Pope Pius IX used his ex cathedra (infallible) authority to condemn this error as part of a list of errors contained in the syllabus of Quanta Cura.  Regarding these condemnations, the pope said:
 

We, truly mindful of Our Apostolic duty, and especially solicitous about our most holy religion, about sound doctrine and the salvation of souls divinely entrusted to Us, and about the good of human society itself, have decided to lift our voice again.  And so all and each evil opinion and doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe and condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected, proscribed and condemned by all the sons of the Catholic Church.

Thus, Pope Pius IX’s condemnation fulfills the conditions for infallibility set out in Vatican I’s document, Pastor Aeternus, because the pope was: 1) carrying out his duty as pastor and teacher of all Christians; 2) in accordance with his supreme apostolic authority; 3) on a matter of faith or morals; 4) to be held by the universal Church.


[19]         Encyclical, Quod Apostolici muneris, December 28, 1878, §7
(emphasis added).

 

[20]         Quod Apostolici muneris, December 28, 1878, §7 (bracketed words added to show context).

[21]         St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Romans, ch.13, lect.1.

 

[22]         Encyclical Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832, §§ 18-19 (emphasis added), quoting and relying on the teaching of St. Augustine (Doctor and Father of the Church), as well as St. Mauritius, and Tertullian (a Father of the Church).

[23]         To read more on the Cristeros resistance to their anti-Catholic government’s oppression, read Latin America: A Sketch of its Glorious Catholic Roots and a Snapshot of its Present, by the Editors of Quanta Cura Press, pp. 41, ©2016.

Reject the COVID vaccines!

Catholic Candle note:  This article is about the particular COVID-19 vaccines which have been researched, produced, or tested in some way by using human cells obtained from an abortion.

As Catholic Candle showed in a previous article, the corona “pandemic” is overblown and is in the “same ballpark” as a bad annual flu.[1]  Therefore, a COVID vaccine, if a moral and safe one were available, would only be a good idea for those for whom a flu vaccine would be a good idea, e.g., someone with multiple co-morbidities.

We must not accept the COVID vaccines which are being offered to us.  Below, we present five aspects of the COVID-19 vaccine issue:

1.    The first part of this article concerns the sinfulness of all abortion-connected vaccines as a general principle;

2.    The second part examines the current COVID-19 vaccines in particular and shows that the current COVID-19 vaccines are all abortion-connected and so they are sinful;

3.    The third part surveys the approval given by the Vatican and several conferences of Catholic (supposed) “bishops” and also contrasts the N-SSPX’s new position concerning abortion-connected vaccines and how the N-SSPX’s new position contradicts its old position;

 

4.    The fourth part examines the grave health risks presented to the recipients of the current COVID-19 vaccines and so, in addition to those vaccines being sinful because they are abortion-connected, those vaccines would also seem to be a sin against prudence because they are too risky to our own health; and

5.    The fifth part examines the lack of lasting immunity obtained from these vaccines.

In the remainder of this article, we examine each of these aspects.

 

Part 1: The Evil of using Vaccines made through the Murders of Babies

We live in a godless society and there are countless evils around us.  For example, in some places, for some diseases (like chickenpox), a person can only obtain vaccines whose manufacturers used cell lines from murdered babies, to develop the vaccines or as disease cultures for manufacturing them.[2]

The conciliar church is lax and liberal and approves receiving vaccines which come from the cell lines of murdered babies, unless there is an alternative vaccine which does not use murder.  But there are three reasons it is wrong to accept these vaccines developed or manufactured using the cell lines of murdered babies:

1.    Using those vaccines promotes future murders.

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

3.    We incur guilt for those murders, by our consenting to use those vaccines.

Below, we 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 the 1960s-era cell lines taken from murdered babies, drug companies, labs, and researchers felt “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.[3] 

Accepting those vaccines manufactured through murdered babies, promotes future murders (and every murder of an innocent human is a murder too many)!  Thus, when you use a vaccine produced through murder, the drug companies are encouraged 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.  We should not help drug companies make wickedness profitable!

3.   We incur guilt for the babies’ murders by our consenting to use those vaccines.

We become culpable for someone else’s sin by consenting to it.[4]  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).[5]

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[6], even passively[7], or accedes, even reluctantly,[8] to the murder.  When we use vaccines which come from murder, we are (at least) passively accepting – i.e., giving in[9] 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 the 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, 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 make it no longer sinful to consent to those 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.[10]  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.[11]  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, faithful and informed Catholics 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!


Discerning God’s Will through standing up for principle.

A similar, superficial objection is that without receiving these sinful vaccines, I will

lose some opportunity, for example, the chance to enter (or send my dependents to) a particular school.  Again, the end does not justify the means!

If, despite your best efforts, you cannot receive a “conscience waiver” or “religious exemption” to attend (or send your dependents to) the school without receiving a sinful vaccine, that merely shows you that God does not want you to attend that particular school, etc


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 venial sin, even the very smallest sin is an infinite evil in three ways.[12]  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.[13]  There are three reasons getting these vaccines is a sin:

1.    Using these vaccines promotes future murders.

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

 

3.    We become culpable for the murders, by our consent.

We should stand up for Christ and reject these sinful vaccines.  We should also urge others to stand against these vaccines which break God’s Law (including the Natural Law).  At our Judgment we would want to have done so!

Part 2: The Currently Available COVID-19 Vaccines are all Abortion-Connected and are all sinful to receive.

  The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is tested using the HEK293 cell line.[14]  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.[15]  Although each “cell line” is from a particular murdered baby, the cell line production process requires many babies dissected alive without anesthetic to successfully obtain a single such human “cell line”.[16]

  The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine used the parts grown from the same kidney from the same murdered baby girl.[17]

  The Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine used the parts of the same kidney from the same murdered baby girl.[18]

 

  The coming Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine which is being developed, 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.[19]

  The coming COVID-19 vaccine being developed by Sanofi/Translate Bio uses the parts of the kidney from the murdered baby girl identified as HEK293.[20]

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


Part 3: The Vatican and several conferences of Catholic (so-called) “bishops” approve of the abortion-connected vaccines and the N-SSPX contradicts its prior rejection of abortion-connected vaccines.

The Vatican[21]  and the national conferences of Catholic (so-called) “bishops”[22] for the U.S. [23], Canada,[24] and the UK[25] all approve receiving the COVID-19 vaccine based on the false reasoning that a few decades passage of time makes it acceptable to cooperate and consent to these murders by accepting these abortion-connected vaccines.  Those conciliar leaders also assert the evil argument that the end justifies the means, i.e., we need to accept the abortion-connected vaccines because our health is so important.  These false arguments were answered above. 

Pope Francis even went so far as to assert that Catholics have a moral duty to receive one of the abortion-connected vaccines.  Here are his words, as quoted in a news report:

“I believe that, ethically, everyone should take the vaccine,” he said, according to a transcript released in advance of the airing of the interview.[26]

Although the vast majority of the conciliar hierarchy accepts the abortion-connected COVID-19 vaccines, a few members of the hierarchy do stand for the truth and oppose the COVID-19 vaccines.  Among these are three cardinals (Mueller, Zen, & Pujats)[27] and five (so-called) “bishops”.[28]  One of them declared (correctly) that we must accept martyrdom rather than accept any of the current COVID-19 vaccines.[29]  He added that:

The crime of abortion is so monstrous that any kind of concatenation[30] with this crime, even a very remote one, is immoral and cannot be accepted under any circumstances by a Catholic once he has become fully aware of it.[31]

These cardinals and (so-called) “bishops” are conciliar, not traditional.[32]  They are in “good standing” in the conciliar church and all of them accept various conciliar errors, e.g., religious liberty for false religions.  However, even they clearly see the sinfulness of these abortion-connected vaccines, in contrast to the liberal N-SSPX (as shown next).


The N-SSPX’s approval of the abortion-connected vaccines

In its recent statement which approves using the abortion-connected COVID-19 vaccines, the N-SSPX merely parroted the conclusory “justifications” of the Vatican, and the conciliar “bishops” conferences of the U.S., Canada and the UK.

The N-SSPX starts out by disparaging its own prior position (viz., that all abortion-connected vaccines are sinful) as supported by “rumor”.  Here are the N-SSPX’s words:

[M]any rumors circulate about those vaccines that suggest a moral impossibility to use them [viz., using the COVID-19 vaccines now available].[33]

Because no one wants to act based on “rumors”, the N-SSPX tries in this way to undermine its readers’ resistance to accepting the current COVID-19 vaccines.

Concerning all of these abortion-connected COVID-19 vaccines, the N-SSPX then concludes that “it is possible … to use such a vaccine.”[34]

One of the flaws in this liberal N-SSPX article, is that it focuses only on the sinfulness of actually taking part (in one way or another) in the actual abortion itself.  The N-SSPX article does not explicitly consider the sin committed by consenting to this sinful act (murder) already committed.  See above, the nine ways a person can share in someone else’s sin. 

Another flaw in the article is that the N-SSPX simply declares the conclusion that the abortion used in the development of the vaccine was too long ago (“remote”) to be sinful, but fails to make any comparison between:

·         the length of time since these abortions only a few decades ago;

and

·         other murders – even hundreds of years ago – where passage of time has still not removed the sinfulness of cooperation with those ancient murders.[35] 

A third flaw in the N-SSPX’s current position is that the N-SSPX fails to address the continued compensation of all of those persons (e.g., the pharmaceutical companies) who are continually profiting from these murders.

A fourth flaw in the N-SSPX’s current article is that it does not address the fact that the profitability of using the bodies of murdered babies gives researchers the incentive to murder more babies.

Twenty years ago, the SSPX used to teach the Catholic truth about abortion-connected vaccines.  In a June 2000 Angelus Magazine article, the SSPX stated: “Consequently, it would be immoral to use a vaccine that one knew was developed in fetal cells, no matter how great the advantage to be procured.”[36]  In other words, the SSPX’s older article correctly warns that the end does not justify the means.

This earlier SSPX article condemns using all abortion-connected vaccines, but specifically warns about the evil of accepting the abortion-connected rubella vaccine.  Now, however, the N-SSPX’s new article specifically justifies accepting this same abortion-connected rubella vaccine (a bad means) because of a good end (avoiding birth defects caused by rubella).  Here are the N-SSPX’s words in 2020 advocating the end justifying the means:

A young woman who is to get married can thus receive the rubella vaccine, although such a vaccine is almost always prepared on fetal cells obtained by abortion.  The reason is the danger for the child: if a woman contracts rubella during pregnancy, especially during the first trimester, the risk of birth defects – eye, hearing or heart – are [sic] significant.  These malformations are permanent.[37]


Part 4: The grave health risks of the current COVID-19 vaccines would seem to make receiving this vaccine a sin against prudence because those vaccines are too risky to our own health.

In addition to the COVID-19 vaccines being mortally sinful because recipients of the vaccines consent to their development through use of murdered babies, these vaccines would seem to also be a sin against prudence because they are a grave risk to the health of those receiving the vaccines.

The U.S.’s chief scientific adviser for the American COVID-19 vaccine rollout admitted that the number of adverse reactions is higher than he expected it would be.[38]  So far, severe adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines occur at a rate about 8.5 times higher than for flu vaccines.[39] 

One of the severe reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine is anaphylactic shock, suffered even by people who never previously had an allergic reaction to anything.[40]  This anaphylactic shock can occur as a reaction to other vaccines, but it occurs 22 times more frequently in the COVID-19 vaccine.[41]  Because of the unexpectedly high rate of dangerous reactions, the British medicines regulator (the MHRA) recommends that locations administering these vaccines have emergency resuscitation facilities on site.[42]  One news report includes video footage of a nurse collapsing after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, as she stepped up to the podium to tell people how great it was to receive the vaccine.[43]

In addition to anaphylactic shock, the U.S. FDA’s warning of severe adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine, includes, but is not limited to:

  strokes[44];

 

  convulsions and seizures[45];

  heart attacks[46];

  “Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis,” which is a “rare inflammatory condition that affects the brain and spinal cord”[47];

  “Transverse myelitis” which is a neurological disorder which inflames the spinal cord, causing “pain, muscle weakness, paralysis, sensory problems, or bladder and bowel dysfunction.”[48]

  auto-immune disease[49]; (One such disease is “Guillain-Barré syndrome,” described as “a rare disorder in which your body’s immune system attacks your nerves.”  The syndrome has “no known cure,” and its mortality rate is “4% to 7%.”)[50]

  birth defects[51];

  harm to nursing babies[52];

  infertility of an indefinite duration[53];

  Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in children[54];

  facial paralysis, (Bell’s Palsy) [55]; and

  Kawasaki disease.[56]  

There are also other severe risks as well as common, less severe side effects from receiving the COVID-19 vaccines.[57]

Here is one catalog of less severe side effects, together with their likelihood of occurring with any single injection of the COVID-19 vaccine:

In clinical studies, the adverse reactions in participants 18 years of age and older were pain at the injection site (92.0%), fatigue (70.0%), headache (64.7%), myalgia (61.5%), arthralgia (46.4%), chills (45.4%), nausea/vomiting (23.0%), axillary swelling/tenderness (19.8%), fever (15.5%), swelling at the injection site (14.7%), and erythema at the injection site (10.0%).[58]

As of December 18, 2020, hundreds of people have been admitted to the emergency rooms shortly following their receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine[59] and thousands of people have suffered adverse reactions.[60]  There has also been unexplained deaths of people believed to be healthy before receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.[61]


The novelty and lack of testing of this vaccine presents possibly-grave additional risks.

The current COVID-19 vaccines have been rushed out without the usual vaccine testing and trial periods.  The vaccines have been approved only for “emergency use”.[62]  The vaccine makers are immune from legal liability no matter how much harm is done by their poorly tested vaccines.[63]

The current COVID-19 vaccines are a completely new type of vaccine never tried before.  All previous vaccines introduced a weakened or neutralized part of the disease-causing substance into the body and the body of the recipient then “learned” to fight this substance so that it would be prepared to fight a virulent form of this same disease.[64] 

The new COVID-19 vaccines are much different.  They use “messenger RNA” to change the “commands” or “instructions” given to our bodies’ own cells to cause those cells to produce spike proteins that they would never naturally produce, so that our own bodies would then fight these spike proteins produced by our bodies.[65]  Moderna, one of the COVID-19 vaccine makers, likens this overriding of our bodies’ cellular processes to introducing a new software program into a computer.[66]

This is a revolutionary and invasive procedure and has had only months of testing, skipping much of the normal, much-longer testing process usually used to help assure the vaccine is safe.[67]  What are the long-term effects?  We don’t know.  No one knows.  Among many other grave potential harms, is the harm of a fatal, exaggerated immune reaction when encountering the “wild” virus itself.[68] 

Yet the world is injecting this vaccine into hundreds of millions (or even billions) of people.  Should we trust the pharmaceutical companies to be honest with us?  Hardly.  Those companies are:

  earning trillions of dollars selling whatever COVID-19 vaccine they can come up with;

  using a brand-new technology;

  after an extremely short and inadequate testing process; and

  shielded from legal liability no matter how much harm they cause to us by these vaccines.

The imprudence of trusting the pharmaceutical companies entirely leaves aside the past history of pharmaceutical companies violating health and safety laws, and/or committing massive fraud.[69]

The mainstream media declares that COVID-19 is an extreme emergency and so the media tells people how “alarming” it is that so many “frontline” workers refuse to accept the vaccine.  For example:

  About 60% of Ohio nursing home workers refuse this vaccine.[70]

  About 50% of frontline workers in Riverside County, California, refuse it.[71]

  Over 50% of New York firefighters reject the vaccine.[72]

For all of the above reasons in this section, the COVID-19 vaccines are too risky even if it were not a mortal sin to receive them because they were developed using murdered babies. 


Part 5: The Immunity obtained from the COVID-19 Vaccine is likely of short duration.

All viruses constantly change.[73]  The viruses’ continual mutations is one reason why there is no permanent vaccine for the flu (or colds) and why vaccines even for the current version of the flu are only partially successful – because the flu vaccine is being developed months ahead of time and, before the flu season even begins, the flu virus is already changing away from the current version of the flu at which the current vaccine was targeted.[74]

Another reason a single injection of the flu vaccine does not give lasting, multi-year immunity, is because our bodies’ immunity does not last even against the same strain of the flu.[75]  That is why coronavirus immunity from either contracting COVID-19 or from a vaccine is called “transient immunity”, because the immunity does not last.[76]

Therefore, whatever coronaviruses are presently spreading will continually change and whatever immunity we have through having contracted this (generally mild) disease or through a vaccine, will probably not last long.[77]


Conclusion

It is a mortal sin to accept any vaccine developed using murdered babies.  The current COVID-19 vaccines are of this type and are gravely wrong to receive, consent to, or to cooperate with.  Further, these vaccines gravely endanger many people because of their many grave and less-grave side effects.  Those vaccines are revolutionary and are invasive in a way never before tried because they change the instructions used by our own cells.  These vaccines have unknown long-term side effects and provide an immunity which probably does not last long.




[2]           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

 

[4]              Here is summary of this basic truth from a common 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).

 

[5]           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

 

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

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

 

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

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