The Leftist Attack on Personal Resilience

The Marxists and Leftists are intentionally undermining the moral fiber of society and the personal resilience of the people.  These enemies of Christ attempt to promote the idea that all people are fragile, and to convince the individual members of the public that they are so.

The Marxists’ motive is plain: no one can effectively resist their ongoing revolution and political power-grab if he believes himself to be:


  dependent on the Big Brother establishment (the “nanny state”) to take care of him,

  dependent on the government to give him money, (handouts/freebies, a so-called “minimum basic income”),

  dependent on a continual supply of “attitude adjusters” (anti-depressants) to “solve” his “mental” and emotional problems,

  dependent because of addictions due to the Leftists legalizing and promoting cannabis, opioids, and other hallucinogenic drugs,

  traumatized and “triggered”[1],

  frightened or disturbed by so-called “misgendering”, “transphobia”, or “microaggressions”,



  suffering from disruptive–impulsive disorder,

  continually needing “therapists” and counselors,


  suffering from ADHD,

  Enfeebled by an obsession with pornography (which the Leftists make widely available),

  weak and helpless,

  suffering from OCD (“Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder”), and/or

  other “disorders”.

A man cannot direct his efforts, attention, and will-power to resist the Marxist power-grab when that man is (or believes himself to be) so broken, dysfunctional, and constantly needing to keep his appointments to “treat” his attention deficit disorder (or other such “disorders”).

The Leftists promote the idea that, if something goes wrong in a person’s life, he is entitled to become emotional and upset if the government does not swoop in and take care of him, making everything better like a nanny swooping in to help a small child who falls on the floor of the nursery. 

The Leftists want each person to believe that he has a right to expect that a “government safety net” will protect him from everything, cushion his every misfortune, assuage his every hurt, and treat his every wound.

The Leftists want to avoid a man being resourceful, provident, hard-working, honest, courageous, self-sacrificing, self-controlled, self-reliant, virtuous, and taking responsibility for his own decisions, choices, and actions.

An important result of our Holy Catholic Faith is that it is the greatest source of genuine resilience which has ever existed.  We Catholics must strive to completely conform our wills to God’s Will.  We know that everything that happens to us which is out of our control, is for our good and is a source of good for us.

We know infallibly that God’s Will is always the best and wisest.  What a comfort!  We know that all things, including tribulations,work together unto the good, for those who love God”.  Romans, 8:28.

This Catholic resilience is completely unlike the fake, modern “resilience” of the ungodly, which is mostly self-deception and “positive thinking”.  (Somewhat similar to this fake, modern “resilience” is the sham resilience of the Stoics of ancient times, which was actually mere endurance, not real resilience.)

We close with one example showing the extent to which the Leftists have succeeded in largely destroying the character and resilience of the people in our society.  This example concerns the fragility on display at the Leftist-controlled U.S. State Department.  The example shows how our current bizarre world is stranger-than-fiction and beyond parody.

The State Department (which has been entirely captured by the Leftists) was recently developing a computer program to more easily allow its employees to declare their “preferred pronouns” (e.g., “she/her/hers” or “he/him/his”).[2]

But a system-wide email glitch temporarily (and randomly) assigned pronouns and inserted them on the email “from” lines of all State Department personnel.[3]

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the State Department’s Chief Information Officer both apologized profusely.  Blinken stated that he knew how “distressing” it was for department personnel that the computer system randomly assigned “preferred pronouns” to them.[4]

Because so many people were “triggered” by this glitch, the State Department offered all staff free “professional counseling” to help them “recover” from their “distress” at being “misgendered”.[5]

Resilience is a sort of heartiness in a person’s character.  We increasingly see the opposite in people’s characters today – they instead resemble a house of cards – ready to collapse at the smallest mishap or puff of air.

Obtaining this genuine resilience is certainly not the main reason we embrace the true Catholic Faith.  But it is one additional blessing that God gives to His friends.

This is another reason to be grateful for the countless blessings He gives us.  In return, Christ the King wants us to fight for Him, which is a great privilege and is our life’s work.

Let us fight against this Leftist power-grab by promoting the virtues and strength of character which are the resilience that the Leftists attack.  Let us fight together side-by-side, in the trenches of the Church Militant, for our Noble and Divine King!

[1]           Merriam Webster Dictionary defines “trigger” as follows: to cause an intense and usually negative emotional reaction in (someone)

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

Catholic Candle note:

Last Month, Catholic Candle began a multi-part examination of how the feminists follow the same program as Satan and Marx.  This article is entitled The Feminist Program is the same as that of Satan and Marx and can be found here:

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

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

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

3.    Seeks to divide people;


4.    Promotes discontent, envy, and discord;


5.    Promotes hatred;


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


7.    Is full of lies; and


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

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

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

(Continuing where we left off last month)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.   Like Satan, Marx promoted hatred.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modern feminist leaders with Marxist connections

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

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

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


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


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

Betty Friedan

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

Bella Abzug

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

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

Jane Fonda

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

Shirley Chisholm

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

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

Part III: to be continued next month

[1]           Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[6]           Here is the longer quote from Marx:

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

Letter of Marx to Arnold Ruge, Kreuznach, September 1843, found here:

[7]           Quote from Karl Marx which is found here:  The end of the Communist Manifesto contains these words: “Working Men of All Countries, Unite!”  In an editor’s footnote, the web site,, explains that the more popularized version of the motto is the longer one quoted in the body of this article.

[8]           Quoted from Program of the Communist Party USA, under the heading: Problems of Inequality, Exploitation, and Oppression, found here:

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

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

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

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

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

Poem by Marx, from pp. 525–26 of Volume one of Marx’s collected works, as quoted here:

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

[12]         Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.

[14]         Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.

[15]         Karl Marx called himself “the greatest hater of the so-called positive.” (emphasis added).

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

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

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

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

[17]         For example, here is a news report about the Satanists’ display in the Illinois State Capitol:

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


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

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

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

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

In what sense do we reject ethics, reject morality?

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

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

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

Vladimir Lenin’s Speech Delivered October 2, 1920, at the Third All-Russia Congress of The Russian Young Communist League, available at this link:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[25]         Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.

[26]         Summa Supp., Q.41, a.1.

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

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


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

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

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

Quoted from Program of the Communist Party USA, subsection: Problems of Inequality, Exploitation, and Oppression, found here:

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

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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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

Quoted from the Program of the Communist Party USA, subsection entitled: Problems of Inequality, Exploitation, and Oppression, found at this link:

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

In seeking to destroy countries, Vladimir Lenin knew the importance of destroying the family.  He declared: “Destroy the family, you destroy the country.”  Quoted here:

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

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

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

Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.

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

[36]         Betty Friedan’s secret Communist past, by David Horowitz, Salon Magazine, January 18, 1999, found here:

[37]         Betty Friedan’s secret Communist past, by David Horowitz, Salon Magazine, January 18, 1999, found here:

[39]         Betty Friedan’s secret Communist past, by David Horowitz, Salon Magazine, January 18, 1999, found here:

[44]         Betty Friedan’s secret Communist past, by David Horowitz, Salon Magazine, January 18, 1999, found here:

Meriting by Good Works in the State of Grace

Catholic Candle note: We should study the Catholic Faith our whole life.  Part of this duty is to understand more fully the truths of the Faith we already learned as children.  Thus, for example, concerning the question “Who is God?”, we know from our First Communion Catechism that “God is the Supreme Being Who made all things.”  During our life, we should learn more about God, as best we can, little-by-little, using the opportunities we have.

The article below is an aid to help us to “peer a little more deeply” into a few related truths of the Faith which we already learned in our catechism as children.  The article below is merely one more step in the journey of learning our Faith better.

By our Catholic Faith, we know that without Sanctifying Grace, we cannot merit anything from God.[1]  We know that everyone who is without Sanctifying Grace is postured as God’s enemy.  Thus, it is not surprising that a person without grace cannot merit since how could God’s enemies ever merit from Him while remaining His enemies and remaining in mortal sin – with their wills turned against Him?  

Even a little unbaptized baby who is incapable of actual sin[2], nonetheless has no grace or charity and so is not a friend of God.  Sanctifying grace changes a person from being God’s enemy into being His friend.[3]

In the present article, we will look at how someone can merit a reward from God in some way (called “condignly”), when he is already in the state of Sanctifying Grace.

What is merit?

To “merit” means “to be worthy of, or entitled, or liable to earn”.[4]

Merit is a right to a reward.   For example, let us suppose a man discovers a plot to kill and overthrow the king of his country.  The man informs the king.  This deed deserves praise and reward, and might have not only saved the king himself, but also the whole kingdom.  Thus, the king – if he is a just man – might say to the man, “Well done!  You have merited a reward and my gratitude.”  In that case, the man merited a natural reward from a mere man (viz., the king).

Below, we first examine two objections to the idea that we can merit anything from God.  After that, we explain the truth and answer those objections.

Objection #1: It seems that we cannot merit from God because everything good we do for God is merely doing what we are obliged to do.

But how can we merit from God?  He owns us, including all of our time and energy and everything we have.  He is entitled to whatever we have as a matter of justice.  We always owe Him everything.  So, when we give Him what is due to Him, i.e., pay our debts to Him, how can we merit anything by doing that?  In a similar way, we would not think that a store check-out clerk would deserve praise or a reward because he returned to us the change due when we pay for our groceries.  That clerk is only giving us what he owes to us in justice.

Here is one way that Our Lord shows that everything we owe to God is our debt to Him:

When you have done all these things that are commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which we ought to do.[5]

For this reason, it seems that even a person in the state of Sanctifying Grace cannot merit since we cannot do anything for God beyond what we already owe and we cannot do anything worthy of a reward.

Objection #2: It seems that we cannot merit from God because God does not need anything we can do for Him and so we cannot benefit Him.

Further, merit seems to pertain to good services performed, which are needed by the recipient or which benefit the person receiving those services.  Hence, in the example above, the king was benefited by the man who uncovered the seditious men’s plot to kill the king.

But God is almighty.  He can do anything He wants to do.  He needs no one’s help.  It seems that, because God does not need anything we can give Him, there is nothing we can do to benefit God and so we deserve no reward.  The psalmist shows that God needs nothing we have, using these words:

I have said to the Lord, thou art my God, for thou hast no need of my goods.

Psalm, 15:2.

This is a second reason why it seems that a person cannot merit even in the state of Sanctifying Grace since there is nothing that he can do which can benefit God and thereby merit a reward.

Solution: We can merit a reward from God condignly.

Our Catholic Faith teaches us that we can indeed merit from God in some way.  For example, God told the prophet Jeremias:

Thus saith the Lord: Let thy voice cease from weeping, and thy eyes from tears: for there is a reward for thy work, saith the Lord: and they shall return out of the land of the enemy.

Jeremias, 31:16 (emphasis added).

St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church, teaches us that:

A person in the state of grace can merit from God condignly.[6]

The word “condign” means “appropriate”.[7]  Thus, to merit condignly is to merit in some way because it is appropriate to do so.  

However, meriting is not merely receiving something as a gift.  As shown above, meriting is in some way having a right – that is, a claim in justice – to receive something.  St. Thomas teaches that “condign merit rests on justice”.[8]

St. Paul shows that our meriting from God is a matter of justice in some way.  St. Paul calls salvation a matter of justice given to the elect by the just Judge.  Here are his words:

As to the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice, which the Lord, the just Judge, will render to me in that day.

2 Timothy, 4:8.

From the above considerations, we know that people really are able to merit a reward from God as a matter of justice, even though everything we have already belongs to God.  

Replies to the Objections

The first objection (above) asks how God can owe us anything since everything we have, we already owe to God.  The answer is that God owes a debt to those in the state of grace because He promised to give a reward to His friends, in exchange for particular conduct on their part.  

That conduct, in itself, does not merit from God (and does not make God our Debtor) because God is already entitled to everything His creatures have.  Even more so, that conduct does not merit the extremely great rewards that God gives to the elect.  However, the rewards God gives are condign, i.e., are appropriate, and are a matter of justice because God promised the rewards and it is appropriate for God to keep His promises.

We see many examples of God’s condign promises.  For example, Our Lord promised:

Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven.[9]

Here is another of very many examples of God’s promises to us:

And you shall be hated by all men for My Name's sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved.[10]

Thus, those in the state of Sanctifying Grace can merit condignly.  This is the reason why St. Paul calls salvation a “crown of justice”.  2 Timothy, 4:8.

Examining the second objection (above), we see that even though God has no need of anything man can give Him [see, Psalm, 15:2], nonetheless, God owes the reward because He promised it.[11] 

This is like a rich man who wants to benefit his nephew and enable his nephew to get a good education.  Suppose the rich man promises his nephew that if the nephew would wash the uncle’s car, he would pay the nephew’s school tuition.  If that nephew then washed the uncle’s car, the uncle would be obliged in justice to fulfill his promise even though the payment of the tuition was much greater than the usual value of a car wash.  That nephew could be said to merit the tuition payment condignly.  


No one can merit unless he is in the state of Sanctifying Grace.  Even then, he merits only condignly, i.e., because God promises the reward, not because we benefit God by making Him better off or happier than He otherwise would be.  However, because of God’s promises, the rewards God gives to those in the state of Sanctifying Grace are given to them as a matter of justice.

[1]          For an explanation of this, read this article:

[2]          Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas teaches this truth, following and quoting St. Augustine: “whosoever has not charity is wicked, because ‘this gift alone of the Holy Ghost distinguishes the children of the kingdom from the children of perdition’”.  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.178, a.2, Sed contra, quoting St. Augustine’s treatise, De Trinitate, bk.15, ch.18.

As the psalmist teaches: “I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me.”  Psalm, 50:7.  St. Paul teaches that, because of Original Sin, we are all “by nature children of wrath”.  Ephesians, 2:3.  

[3]          For an explanation of this, read this article:

[4] (definition of the transitive verb, “merit”).

[5]          St. Luke’s Gospel, 17:10.

[6]          Summa, Ia IIae, Q.114, a.6, respondeo, (emphasis added).

[8]          Summa, Ia IIae, Q.114, a.6, ad 2.

[9]          St. Matthew 10: 11-12 (emphasis added).

[10]          St. Matthew 10:22 (emphasis added).

[11]            It is true that the just man gives glory to God by his good works.  That is a blessing and a consolation to the just man – viz., that he can give God this glory.  However, God does not need anything or anyone.  If that man became evil, he would still manifest God’s glory – this time by manifesting God’s justice through God punishing that man.