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

Catholic Candle note:

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

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

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

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

3.    Seeks to divide people;

 

4.    Promotes discontent, envy, and discord;

 

5.    Promotes hatred;

 

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

 

7.    Is full of lies; and

 

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

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

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

(Continuing where we left off last month)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.   Like Satan, Marx promoted hatred.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Modern feminist leaders with Marxist connections

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

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

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

 

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

 

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


Betty Friedan

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


Bella Abzug

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

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


Jane Fonda

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


Shirley Chisholm

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

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

Part III: to be continued next month



[1]           Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[6]           Here is the longer quote from Marx:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[12]         Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.

[14]         Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

In what sense do we reject ethics, reject morality?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[25]         Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.

[26]         Summa Supp., Q.41, a.1.

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.

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

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

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

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

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

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.  


Conclusion

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: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/06/04/sanctifying-grace-companion-charity/

[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: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/06/04/sanctifying-grace-companion-charity/

[4]          https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/merit (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.

Catholic Calendar Corrigenda

We are sorry that we made some mistakes in the 2021 Catholic Candle calendar.  A corrected version of this calendar is at this link: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/03/05/2021-calendar/

Alternatively, you could correct the original version by making these changes:

  On April 25, the feast of St. Mark takes precedence over the 3rd Sunday after Easter;

  The ember days don’t fall on May 19, 21, and 22.  Instead they fall during Pentecost Week, that is, May 26, 28, and 29;

  The Epiphany of Our Lord doesn’t fall on April 9th and Sept. 6th;

  The feast of St. Stephen, the martyr, on Dec. 26, takes precedence over the Sunday within the Octave of Christmas;

  December 30 is not St. Martina’s feast day.  Instead, it is “Within the Octave of the Nativity”; and

  The feast of St. Joseph, Husband of the Blessed Virgin Mary, falls on April 28, not on April 29.

Hireling-Priests in the Time of Coronavirus

Our Lord is the Good Shepherd and is the model of His priests who are good shepherds.  Our Lord contrasts the selflessness of a good shepherd-priest, with a hireling-priest.  Here are Our Lord’s words:

I am the good shepherd.  The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.  But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth; and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep; and the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling, and he hath no care for the sheep.[1] 

A hireling puts his own safety and self-interest before the good of his flock.  He withdraws from his flock in times of fear and trial.

When times are easy and peaceful, it is hard to distinguish hireling-priests from good shepherd-priests.  The proof that a particular priest is a hireling comes during times of fear and trial.  Here is how Pope St. Gregory the Great, Doctor of the Church, explains this truth:

Whether he [viz., a priest] is a shepherd or a hireling cannot be truly known unless a time of trial arise.  For as a rule, in times of peace, both shepherd and hireling alike remain watching their flocks.  It is only when the wolf comes that each one shows the purpose for which he has been standing guard over his flock.[2]

In any tribulation – whether a religious persecution or a plague – a priest has a duty to continue administering to souls.  Although a hireling withdraws from the flock, a true shepherd continues to tend the flock.

There are only two circumstances in which a priest may withdraw from his flock:

  when he is in special danger not shared by other good priests who remain to give good care to that flock; or

  when the priest can take his entire flock with him to safety and administer to their souls in that safe place.

Here is how St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church, teaches this truth:

Let the servants of Christ, the ministers of His Word, and of His sacraments, flee from city to city whenever one of them is especially sought for by persecutors; but so that the Church is not abandoned by those who are not thus pursued.  But when the danger is common to all, that is, to bishops and clergy and to the laity, let those who need the help of others be not abandoned by those whose help they need.  Therefore, either let all pass over to a place of safety, or else let those who must of necessity remain be not abandoned by those through whom their need for the rites of the Church are to be fulfilled.

The ministers of the Church, therefore, must then fly, under pressure of persecution, from those places in which we dwell when there is either no people of Christ there to whom we must minister, or when the needed ministry can be fulfilled by others who have not the same reason for flight. But when the people remain, and the ministers take to flight, and their ministry is withdrawn, what then have we but that condemnable flight of hirelings who have no care for the sheep.[3]

So, when the people remain in any tribulation – whether a religious persecution or a plague – only a hireling abandons them and withdraws his spiritual care. 

Fear for his personal safety is the hallmark of a hireling-priest.  He “seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth” for his own safety.[4]  In this time of coronavirus, the two main fears of a hireling-priest are:

1.    He fears the government threats if he continues caring for his flock instead of “sheltering in place”; and

2.    He fears the coronavirus itself.

Below we will examine each of the hireling’s fears.

1. A priest who is a true shepherd continues caring for his flock even when threatened by the government for doing so.

Our godless civil governments have ordered priests to “lock down” and to “shelter in place” and to not go out to attend to the souls of their flocks.[5]  These godless governments assert that religion is not an “essential service” for the people and that, for the (supposed) “good of the people”, priests must not attend to their flocks.

It has happened many times in the history of the Catholic Church that the civil government ordered priests not to attend to their flocks.  A true shepherd would never submit to those evil commands.  In contrast to true shepherds, hirelings submit out of their own self-interest.

In Mexico, in the early 20th Century, when the godless, anti-Catholic, Masonic government ordered priests not to administer to their flocks, many hireling-priests fled to the United States, following the example of their hireling-bishops.  Many of the remaining priests in Mexico abandoned their flocks, married, and settled in the cities.[6]  However, here is what happened to the good shepherd-priests:

A courageous minority of priests refused to compromise.  They went into hiding and roamed Mexico at night, in disguise, doing their best to bring the True Faith and the Sacraments to the faithful.  If caught, they were arrested, fined, jailed, and sometimes tortured and executed.  In February 1915 alone, the Mexican government martyred 160 priests.[7]

Those were faithful shepherds indeed!  They imitated Our Lord, the Good Shepherd, Who laid down His Life for His sheep.  Those priests rejected the civil government’s order telling them to withdraw from their flocks “for the good of the people”.

Saints John and Paul are models for our time, showing the danger of the civil authority stifling the Church’s work by “little steps”.

Saints John and Paul (who are mentioned in the Canon of the Mass) are special models for our time.  They were martyred in 363 A.D., under the Emperor Julian the Apostate, because they would not compromise with the civil authority’s restrictions on the Catholic Church’s work spreading the true religion and saving souls.

The Roman Emperor, Julian the Apostate, attempted to stifle the Catholic religion by placing restrictions on Catholics teaching the youth.[8]  These restrictions were much more perilous to the Church than the preceding bloody persecutions under Nero and Diocletian because of the danger that Catholics would acquiesce to these limits on the work of the Catholic Church (whereas there was no danger Catholics would acquiesce in the government’s bloody persecution and martyrdom of Catholics).  Dom Guéranger explains that “never was Holy Church menaced with greater peril”.[9]

Dom Guéranger explains that during the previous persecutions, Catholics went to martyrdom with unmixed nobility.  Because of this, the civil government changed its strategy and instead attempted to destroy the Church through “small” compromises to slowly snuff out Her life.  Dom Guéranger continues:

[The civil government sought to] now make a slave of her [viz., the Church] whom they had beheld still holding her royal liberty in the face of executioners – fain would they [viz., the persecutors] now await the moment when, once enslaved, she would at last disappear of herself, in powerlessness and degradation.[10]

However, the bishops of the time were true shepherds, not hirelings that went along with the civil government stifling the Church in a “bloodless” weakening.  Dom Guéranger continues the account:

[T]he bishops of that time found vent for their indignant soul, in accents such as their predecessors had spared to princes whose brute violence was then inundating the empire with Christian blood.  They now retorted upon the tyrant, scorn for scorn; and the manifestations of contempt that consequently came showering in, from every quarter upon the crowned fool [viz., Julian], completely unmasked at last his feigned moderation [viz., his not putting Catholics to death].  Julian was now shown up as nothing but a common persecutor of the usual kind – blood flowed; the Church was rescued.[11]

In other words, Dom Guéranger explains that the Church was in great danger from the slow stifling of Her life by the civil authorities.  She was rescued by the renewed bloody persecutions and martyrdoms.  Dear readers, beware!  We are now undergoing this same slow snuffing out the Catholic religion!  Bloody persecution would be much less dangerous!

Dom Guéranger continues his account of Saints John and Paul, writing that cowardly Catholics would doubtlessly think that the best course would be to accept “small” compromises and “small” limitations on the Catholic Church’s care for souls.  Below, Dom Guéranger provides an imitation of the soothing words of cowardly Catholics who would advise accepting restrictions which are “prudent” compromises with the civil government. 

Here is Dom Guéranger’s warning, which imitates the cowards, trying to justify compromise:

[Julian the Apostate did not require] the renouncing of Jesus Christ, [as] a condition [for peace]. Well then, it may be retorted [viz., by weak compromisers], why not yield to the Imperial whim?  Could they [viz., Saints John and Paul] not do so without wounding their conscience?  Surely too much stiffness would be rather calculated to illdispose the prince [viz., Julian], perhaps even fatally.  Whereas to listen to him would very likely have a soothing effect upon him; nay, possibly even bring him round to relax somewhat of those administrative trammels, unfortunately imposed upon the Church by his prejudiced government.  Yea, for aught one knew, the possible conversion of his soul, the return of so many of the misled who had followed him in his fall, might be the result!  Should not such things as these deserve some consideration should they not impose, as a duty, some gentle handling?[12]

Dom Guéranger is warning us that this is a temptation of the devil under the appearance of good!  Dom Guéranger acknowledges that, if Saints John and Paul would have gone along with the government’s limitations on the Church, some people would have found a way to “justify” their compromise.  Here are Dom Guéranger’s words:

[T]he most exacting casuist[13] could not find it a crime for John and Paul to dwell in a court, where nothing was demanded of them contrary to the divine precepts.[14]

But true Soldiers of Christ are not compromisers!  Saints John and Paul openly opposed this stifling of the Catholic Faith and were gloriously martyred. 

Dom Guéranger warns his readers that, in our modern age, the civil authorities are again seeking to stifle the Catholic Church through slow suppression.  Here is his warning given through the means of a prayer addressing those two martyrs themselves:

Now-a-days there has arisen a persecution not dissimilar to that in which you gained the crown; Julian’s plan of action is once more in vogue ….[15]

In the present world, we see the tactics of Julian the Apostate again being used, in the civil governments’ ordering the priests to “lock down” and cease administering to their flock.  Only hireling–priests would submit to that order.

St. Edmund Campion, a good shepherd who firmly resolved to administer to his flock against the civil government’s command

About 1580, St. Edmund Campion, a Catholic priest, firmly declared his determination to continue administering to souls in Elizabethan England, despite the government’s order to Catholic priests to not attend to souls.  Here is St. Edmund Campion’s courageous response to the civil government’s order:

Whereas I have come out of Germany and Bohemia, being sent by my superiors, and adventured myself into this noble realm [viz., England], my dear country, for the glory of God and benefit of souls, I thought it like enough that, in this busy, watchful, and suspicious world, I should either sooner or later be intercepted and stopped of my course [viz., his administering to souls].

Wherefore, providing for all events, and uncertain what may become of me, when God shall haply deliver my body into durance [imprisonment], I supposed it needful to put this in writing in a readiness, desiring your good lordships [i.e., England’s ruling council] to give it your reading, to know my cause.  This doing, I trust I shall ease you of some labor.  For that which otherwise you must have sought for by practice of wit, I do now lay into your hands by plain confession.  …

Many innocent hands are lifted up to heaven [in prayer] for you daily by those English students [in Catholic seminaries on the continent], whose posterity shall never die, which beyond seas, gathering virtue and sufficient knowledge for the purpose, are determined never to give you over [i.e., give up on the rulers’ conversion], but either to win you heaven, or to die upon your pikes [weapons].  And touching our Society [of Jesus], be it known to you that we have made a league – all the Jesuits in the world – whose succession and multitude must overreach all the practice of England – cheerfully to carry the cross you shall lay upon us, and never to despair your recovery [to the Catholic Faith], while we have a man left to enjoy your Tyburn [a place of execution], or to be racked with your torments, or consumed with your prisons.  The expense is reckoned, the enterprise is begun; it is of God; it cannot be withstood.  So the faith was planted: So it must be restored.[16]

St. Edmund Campion was a true shepherd!  He did not withdraw from his flock even though the civil government told him that the Catholic religion is not an “essential service”!  Instead, this faithful shepherd courageously tells the civil authorities that nothing will stop him from attending to his flock until they catch him and kill him.

What a contrast this true shepherd is to the corona-cowards who withdraw from their flocks because the civil government ordered them to “shelter in place”!  For example, in April 2020, the French (so-called) bishops spinelessly said they were “regretting” the civil government’s order that “Catholic worship will be obliged to wait three weeks longer than stores, businesses, and public transport in order to take place publicly.”[17]

Where are the true shepherds?  Not there!  These are hirelings![18]

As St. Augustine teaches:

[W]hen the people remain [in need], and the ministers take to flight [or stay home to “shelter in place”], and their ministry is withdrawn, what then have we but that condemnable flight of hirelings who have no care for the sheep.[19]

Summary of this section

Good shepherd–priests continue administering to their flocks and do not abandon them even when the government orders a “lock down”.  By contrast, hireling–priests “shelter in place” for fear of the government.

2. A priest who is a true shepherd continues caring for this flock even during a plague.

Although hireling–priests “shelter in place”, good shepherd–priests stay with their flocks in times of plague.

For example, when the plague struck Milan, here is what St. Charles Borromeo did:

He visited the plague–stricken with unwearied zeal, assisted them with fatherly affection, and, administering to them with his own hands the Sacraments of the Church, singularly consoled them.[20]

St. Charles Borromeo and St. Aloysius Gonzaga both died attending victims of the plague.[21] 

When the plague was raging in Rome, Saint Joseph Calasanctius joined St. Camillus, and not content in his ardent zeal, with bestowing lavish care upon the sick poor, he even carried the dead to the grave on his own shoulders.[22]

When the plague struck Valencia, here is what St. Louis Bertrand did:

The plague that decimated the inhabitants of Valencia and the vicinity in 1557, afforded the saint [viz., St. Louis Bertrand] an excellent opportunity for the exercise of his charity and zeal.  Tirelessly, he ministered to the spiritual and physical needs of the afflicted.  With the tenderness and devotion of a mother, he nursed the sick.  The dead he prepared for burial and interred with his own hands.[23]

When the plague struck Switzerland, here is what St. Francis de Sales did:

Though the plague raged violently at Thonon [Switzerland], this did not hinder [St.] Francis [de Sales] either by day or night from assisting the sick in their last moments; and God preserved him from the contagion, which seized and swept off several of his fellow-laborers.  …  In a plague which raged there [viz., Annecy, Switzerland], he daily exposed his own life to assist his flock.[24]

When the plague struck Wales, here is what St. Theliau did:

When the yellow plague depopulated Wales, he exerted his courage and charity with a heroic intrepidity.  Providence preserved his life for the sake of others ….[25]

There are countless other examples of good shepherd–priests faithfully attending their flocks during a plague.  This is their duty – to assist their flock during a plague (and always).  A good shepherd–priest’s selfless devotion to his flock compels the admiration even of non-Catholics.  For example, here is how one protestant admired the religious priests of Manila during the plague there:

Of undaunted courage, they have ever been to the front when calamities threatened their flocks.  In epidemics of plague and cholera they have not been dismayed, nor have they ever in such cases abandoned their flocks ….[26]

Summary of this section

Good shepherd–priests continue administering to their flocks and do not cower for fear of the plague.  By contrast, hireling–priests “shelter in place” and withdraw from administering to their flocks.

In times of plague the prayers should be public.

The Catholic Church has always known what Pope Francis now denies, viz., that plagues are a just punishment of God for sin.[27]  In times of plague, the Catholic Church redoubles Her public prayers.  By contrast, the conciliar church and hirelings “lock down” and stay home.

When the plague ravaged Rome, this is what Pope St. Gregory the Great did:

[T]he plague continued to rage at Rome with great violence; and, while the people waited for the emperor’s answer, St. Gregory took occasion from their calamities to exhort them to repentance.  Having made them a pathetic [very moving] sermon on that subject, he appointed a solemn litany, or procession, in seven companies, with a priest at the head of each, who were to march from different churches, and all to meet in that of St. Mary Major; singing Kyrie Eleison as they went along the streets.  During this procession there died in one hour’s time fourscore [i.e., eighty people] of those who assisted at it.  But St. Gregory did not forbear to exhort the people, and to pray till such time as the distemper ceased.[28]

But as [St.] Gregory was passing over the bridge of St. Peter’s, a heavenly vision consoled them [viz., the people] in the midst of their litanies.  The archangel Michael was seen over the tomb of Hadrian, sheathing his flaming sword in token that the pestilence was to cease.  [Saint] Gregory heard the angelic antiphon from heavenly voices – Regina Coeli, lætare, and added himself the concluding verse – Ora pro nobis Deum, alleluia.[29]

How great was St. Gregory’s Faith compared to modern hirelings!  In April 2020, Cardinal Cupich of Chicago blasphemously scoffed at the power of prayer to help with the Coronavirus.  He said “religion is not magic where we just say prayers and think things are going to change.”[30]

Hireling–priests stay home.  They don’t see the importance of public prayer and penance in the time of plague because they are men of little faith.  But good shepherds are the opposite! 

When the plague struck Milan, here is what St. Charles Borromeo did:

[T]he plague appeared in Milan.  [Saint] Charles was at Lodi, at the funeral of the bishop.  He at once returned, and inspired confidence in all.  He was convinced that the plague was sent as a chastisement for sin ….[31]

[H]e ordered public supplications to be made, and himself walked in the processions, with a rope round his neck, his feet bare and bleeding from the stones, and carrying a cross; and thus offering himself as a victim for the sins of the people, he endeavored to turn away the anger of God.[32]

There is no end to the other examples we could give of the Catholic Church praying and processing publicly during times of plague.  Such a Catholic response, though, requires firm Faith.  Hireling-priests “shelter in place” and agree with Cardinal Cupich that “religion is not magic where we just say [public] prayers and think things are going to change.”[33] 

Hireling-priests are like Ohio’s (so-called) “bishops” who cowardly canceled all services because of fears that large gatherings could spread the coronavirus.[34]

Conclusion of this article

Hireling-priests cower at home when the government orders them to “shelter in place”.  Hireling–priests flee from coronavirus to save their own skin.  Good shepherd-priests stay with their flocks despite persecutions from the government or the danger from plague.[35]



[1]           St. John’s Gospel, Ch. 10, vv. 11-13 (emphasis added).

 

[2]           Pope St. Gregory the Great, quoted from The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, translated and edited BY M. F. Toal, D.D., Volume II, Second Sunday after Easter, Henry Regnery Co., Chicago, ©1958. p.292.

 

[3]           St. Augustine, quoted from The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, translated and edited BY M. F. Toal, D.D., Volume II, Second Sunday after Easter, Henry Regnery Co., Chicago, ©1958. p.292 (italic emphasis in the original; bold emphasis added).

 

[4]           Quoting St. John’s Gospel, Ch. 10, vv. 11-13.

 

[5]           See, e.g., these news reports which are a small sample of available reports:

 

§  Michigan’s governor banning all "public and private gatherings of any kind" including all religious services.  https://reason.com/2020/04/15/michigans-emergency-stay-at-home-order-is-a-hot-mess-now-4-sheriffs-say-they-wont-be-enforcing-parts-of-it/

 

§  A mayor bans religious services: https://www.foxnews.com/us/mississippi-church-sues-police-after-congregants-ticketed-during-drive-in-service

 

§  Police break up religious services.  https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/armed-police-storm-catholic-parish-in-france-demand-priest-stop-mass

 

§  Mississippi’s Governor, Tate Reeves, issued a shelter-in-place order on April 3, 2020, that was followed by an executive order from Greenville Mississippi’s mayor, mandating all church buildings close for both in-person and drive-in church services. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/baptist-church-members-given-500-tickets-for-listening-to-church-service-in-their-cars-via-radio-in-parking-lot

 

§  Canadian police threaten a group of people because they are parked in a church parking lot, even though they stayed in their cars.  https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadian-police-vow-to-hold-christians-accountable-for-attending-drive-in-sunday-service

 

Catholic Candle note: this article leaves aside the fact that leaders in the human element of the Church might not be valid priests and bishops and that the “sacraments” they offer are really conciliar poison. 

 

For an explanation why conciliar ordinations and consecrations are inherently doubtful and so should be treated as invalid, read these articles:

 

v  https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/new-ordination-doubtful.html

 

v  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49oPuI54eEGd2RRcTFSY29EYzg/view

 

v   https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49oPuI54eEGZVF5cmFvMGdZM0U/view

 

For an explanation why the conciliar sacraments anger God and give no grace, read these articles:

 

Ø  https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/new-mass-never-grace.html

 

Ø  https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/williamson-confess-priest-believes.html

 

[6]           Latin America: A Sketch of its Glorious Catholic Roots and a Snapshot of its Present, by the Editors of Quanta Cura Press, pp.39-40, © 2016.

[7]           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.40, © 2016.

[8]               The second thing Julian the Apostate did was to ban Catholics from holding government offices.

 

[9]           The Liturgical Year, by Dom Guéranger, June 26, Feasts of Saints John and Paul, volume 12, (also called volume 3 for the Time After Pentecost) James Duffy, Dublin, 1890, pp. 348-350.

[10]         The Liturgical Year, by Dom Guéranger, June 26, Feasts of Saints John and Paul, volume 12, (also called volume 3 for the Time After Pentecost) James Duffy, Dublin, 1890, pp. 348-350 (bracketed words added for clarity).

[11]         The Liturgical Year, by Dom Guéranger, June 26, Feasts of Saints John and Paul, volume 12, (also called volume 3 for the Time After Pentecost) James Duffy, Dublin, 1890, pp. 348-350 (bracketed words added for clarity).

[12]         The Liturgical Year, by Dom Guéranger, June 26, Feasts of Saints John and Paul, volume 12, (also called volume 3 for the Time After Pentecost) James Duffy, Dublin, 1890, pp. 348-350 (bracketed words added for clarity).

[13]         A casuist is a person who is trained in “the resolving of specific cases of conscience, duty, or conduct through interpretation of ethical principles or religious doctrine”.  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/casuistry

 

[14]         The Liturgical Year, by Dom Guéranger, June 26, Feasts of Saints John and Paul, volume 12, (also called volume 3 for the Time After Pentecost) James Duffy, Dublin, 1890, pp. 348-350.

[15]         The Liturgical Year, by Dom Guéranger, June 26, Feasts of Saints John and Paul, volume 12, (also called volume 3 for the Time After Pentecost) James Duffy, Dublin, 1890, pp. 348-350.

[16]         Apologia of St. Edmund Campion, a/k/a “Campion’s brag” (bracketed words added for clarity).

 

[18]         This article leaves aside the fact that these actions taken by the human element of the Church involve leaders who might not be valid priests and bishops and that the “sacraments” they offer are really conciliar poison. 

[19]         St. Augustine, quoted from The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, translated and edited BY M. F. Toal, D.D., Volume II, Second Sunday after Easter, Henry Regnery Co., Chicago, ©1958. p.292 (italic emphasis in the original; bold emphasis added; bracketed words added).

 

[20]         The Liturgical Year, by Dom Guéranger, November 4, Feast of St. Charles Borromeo, volume 15, (also called volume 6 for the Time After Pentecost) New York, Benziger Bros., 1903, p. 189.

[21]           “St. Aloysius and St. Charles Borromeo died of the plague, caught while nursing the sick in the hospital.”  Quoted from The Catechism Explained, Spirago, Section: The Fifth Commandment of God, Subsection: Duty in respect to our own life, §4, p.384 (emphasis added).

 

[22]         The Liturgical Year, by Dom Guéranger, August 27, Feast of Saint Joseph Calasanctius, volume 14, (also called volume 6 for the Time After Pentecost) New York, Benziger Bros., 1910, p. 88-89.

 

[23]         1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 9, article: Louis Bertrand.

 

[24]         Butler’s Lives of the Saints, January 29, Saint Francis de Sales (bracketed words added for clarity).

[25]         Butler’s Lives of the Saints, February 9, Saint Theliau.

[26]         Catholic Encyclopedia, article: Archdiocese of Manila.

 

[27]         Here is a news report of Pope Francis denying that a plague is a punishment of God for sin.  https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/the-coronavirus-outbreak-shows-just-how-liberal-pope-francis-really-is

 

[28]         Butler’s Lives of the Saints, March 12, Pope St. Gregory the Great (bracketed words added).

 

[29]         Quoted from The Formation of Christendom, by Thomas William Allies, Volume VI, The Holy See and the Wandering of the Nations, from St. Leo I to St. Gregory I,

Ch. 5 St. Gregory the Great.

 

[31]         Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 2, article St. Charles Borromeo

 

[32]         The Liturgical Year, by Dom Guéranger, November 4, Feast of St. Charles Borromeo, volume 15, (also called volume 6 for the Time After Pentecost) New York, Benziger Bros., 1903, p. 189.

[35]         There is evidence that the danger of the coronavirus is greatly exaggerated in order to justify heavyhanded government intrusion and destruction of rightful liberty.  However, this article shows that even if the coronavirus were terribly deadly, the priests who withdraw from their flocks are hirelings.

Feminism is Anarchy in the Family

 

Anarchy is the “lack of obedience to an authority; insubordination: the anarchy of his rebellious teenage years.[1]

 

Rebellion is anarchy.  Here are some examples of anarchy:

 

  Lucifer at creation

  Adam and Eve in the Garden

  Collegiality in the Church after Vatican II

  Feminism in the family 

 

Feminist propaganda glorifies selfish independence of women, rejecting the need for

a husband in the family, and certainly never accepts him as the family’s head.  These anti-Catholic feminist seeds produce a dysfunctional and miserable family

for all involved.  Thus, feminism is anti-family.

 

Our fallen human nature inclines toward disobedience, and feminism is simply one variation of Lucifer’s cry “non serviam!”  The Holy Ghost knew this and moved St. Paul to plainly set down God’s unchangeable Law (infallibly taught by the Catholic Church as well as the Natural Law):

 

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.  …  [L]et the wife fear her husband.[2]

 

Tragically, feminist propaganda is the new norm in the Western World and is a poison absorbed in various degrees by most wives in the conciliar church and by many in the Catholic Church.  Because of the liberalism all around us, we are all imbued by this spirit of liberalism and rebellion.

 

A central, anti-family, feminist idea is that all women, to be “fulfilled,”

must work outside the home, have a career, and be dependent on no one, least

of all, on a husband.  It is easy to see this idea is directly against Catholic dogma and the Natural Law.  The “new” SSPX is an enabler of this family-destroying propaganda when it hires wives/mothers (as it does), who have children and responsibilities at home.

 

From the beginning, the husband is the head, i.e., the leader of the family.  He is the one who proposed marriage.  He is most responsible for the family’s salvation, protection, financial well-being, and discipline when needed.  The wife is the heart

of the family, bringing generosity, love, support, humility, respect, loyalty,

modesty, etc.  They work as a team doing God’s will.

 

The husband, although the head, has the grave duty to love and cherish his wife and sacrifice for her like for his own body. 

 

Just as St. Paul counteracted a wife’s fallen tendency to disobey her husband, St. Paul also counteracted a husband’s fallen tendency to not love and sacrifice for his wife with complete generosity.  St. Paul infallibly taught:

 

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it: that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish.  So also, ought men to love their wives as their own bodies.  He that loveth his wife, loveth himself.  For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.  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.  Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular, love his wife as himself ….[3]

 

Notice that these laws are not contingent on the other spouse fulfilling his/her own duty.  If one spouse fails to do his/her duty, that is no excuse for the other one.  St. Paul does not command a wife to obey her husband provided he loves her and delivers himself up for her.  St. Paul simply commands: “as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things”. 

 

A wife acts against God and Nature when she does not obey her husband.  She acts perversely.  A faithful Catholic woman (and one following Nature), wants to lean on her husband and have him provide for, protect, and guide her.

 

Likewise, St. Paul does not command a husband to love his wife and sacrifice himself for her provided she is loveable and that she obeys him.  A man acts against God and Nature who does not love, cherish, and sacrifice himself for his wife as for his own body.  Doing anything less is perverse.  Simply, a husband must be chivalrous, must love his wife and must sacrifice himself for her with complete generosity. 

 

A Catholic husband must love his family as Christ loves His Church.  A Catholic wife must obey her husband as the Blessed Virgin Mary obeyed St. Joseph.  For love of God (and following Nature), both must love and sacrifice for their family.  Doing this, the Catholic family is happy, harmonious, and holy.  Otherwise, the family is a failure. 

 

In contrast to this happy, harmonious family, a family infected with feminism forms the next generation to also be anarchists.  Thus, feminist anarchy in the home is a disaster which travels from one generation to the next, causing damnation.  One of the reasons for the General Judgment (at the end of the world), is so that we can see how our actions (such as having a matriarchal family), destroy the generations after we are in the grave.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Feminism denies the God-given and Natural order and authority in the family.  This is anarchy!  Anarchy means the family is a house divided against itself.  A house divided against itself will not stand.[4]  Thus, feminism destroys the family.

 

Because we are Catholic and are Soldiers of Christ, we must fight feminism!



[1]           See, e.g., http://www.dictionary.com/browse/anarchy

 

[2]           Ephesians, ch.5, vv. 22-33 (emphasis added).

[3]              Ephesians, ch.5, vv. 25-33 (emphasis added).

 

[4]           St. Matthew, 12:25.

No One Knows How to Feast Like a Traditional Catholic!

(Because no one knows how to fast like a Traditional Catholic)

Catholic Candle note: The holy time of Lent is upon us, which is a great occasion to reflect upon fasting (and the reason for feasting at the great feast of Easter).  The article below concerns feasting but does not imply eating in excessive quantities.

It might seem paradoxical, but in our age of laxity and over-indulgence, people don’t know how to feast properly.

Here are two elements that greatly enhance feasting:

1.    The best feasting is preceded by generous and strict fasting; and

2.    The best feasting has a great and celebratory motive.

Below, we discuss both of these elements which help us to feast well.

 

1.   The best feasting is preceded by generous and strict fasting.

Webster’s Dictionary defines a “feast” this way:

  an elaborate and usually abundant meal often accompanied by a ceremony or entertainment; banquet

  something that gives unusual or abundant enjoyment[1]

When a person satisfies his passions and his craves whenever he wants to, every day, then every day is largely the same.  To feast properly, we should fast properly!  Notice that Webster’s definition says that a proper feast should be “elaborate and unusually abundant”.  When a person eats with a usual great abundance, he is not feasting.

For the best feasting, there should be a strong contrast between the fasting just finished and the feasting now begun.  The greater the contrast, the better!  Such preceding fasting makes the subsequent feast more elaborate and more abundant by contrast.

Like other false religions, the conciliar church has virtually no fasting.  By contrast, Traditional Catholics are faithful to Holy Mother Church’s wholesome traditional commands to fast.  Because of this, Traditional Catholics also know well how to feast.

Easter is the greatest feast of the year.  It is fittingly preceded by the greatest fasting of the year (six-and-one-half weeks).[2]  The high feast of Christmas is preceded by its (fasting) vigil and its penitential season of Advent.  Other great feasts have their (fasting) vigils. 

Let us be generous!  The more generous we are in our fasting, the higher will be our feasting!  The conciliar church and other false religions can’t feast well because they don’t fast well.

 

2.   The best feasting has a great and celebratory motive.

Our motive for feasting should not be because we are inclined to indulge our passions and our craves.  That is not a wholesome reason to feast.  That is merely self-indulgence, resulting in the strengthening of our passions and the weakening of our will.

Notice that Webster’s Dictionary defines feasting as being “often accompanied by a ceremony”.[3]  In other words, feasting is best accompanied by important “ceremonies” – which show important reasons to feast.

A Catholic, whose heart if full of love and joy for his Risen Lord, can fully immerse himself in the Easter feasting, rejoicing in that sublime day with its great liturgical prayers, ceremonies and meaning.

But any person who is focused only on himself, and whose god is his belly[4], “celebrates” nothing except himself – and he already “celebrates himself” every day of the year.  So, every day is empty of special meaning.  There is no day with a fresh and high motive for celebrating and feasting.

The austere St. Francis of Assisi knew the worthiness of celebrating a high feast.  Here is one account, giving us insight into St. Francis’s thoughts about feasting:

When a friar once asked him [viz., St. Francis of Assisi] if you could eat meat when Christmas coincided with Friday, the traditional day of abstinence, St. Francis replied: "I would like that on Christmas even the walls could eat meat.”[5]

Like St. Francis of Assisi, St. John Chrysostom knew the great fittingness of celebrating a high feast.  Read St. John Chrysostom’s sermon (below) showing his contagious joy when celebrating the magnificent Easter feast:

Easter Sermon of St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church

If any man be devout and love God, let him enjoy this fair and radiant triumphal feast.

If any man be a wise servant, let him enter rejoicing into the joy of his Lord.

If any have labored long in fasting, let him now receive his recompense.

If any have wrought from the first hour, let him today receive his just reward.

If any have come at the third hour, let him with thankfulness keep the feast.

If any have arrived at the sixth hour, let him have no misgivings, because he shall in no wise be deprived.

If any have delayed until the ninth hour, let him draw near, fearing nothing.

If any have tarried even until the eleventh hour, let him also be not alarmed at his tardiness; for the Lord, who is jealous of his honor, will accept the last even as the first; He gives rest unto him who comes at the eleventh hour, even as unto him who has worked from the first hour.

And He shows mercy upon the last, and cares for the first; and to the one he gives, and upon the other he bestows gifts.

And He both accepts the deeds, and welcomes the intention, and honors the acts and praises the offering.

Wherefore, enter ye all into the joy of your Lord, and receive your reward, both the first and likewise the second.

You rich and poor together, hold high festival.

You sober and you heedless, honor the day.

Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast.

The table is fully laden; feast sumptuously!

The calf is fatted; let no one go hungry away.

Enjoy the feast of faith; receive all the riches of loving-kindness.

Let no one bewail his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed.

Let no one weep for his iniquities, for pardon has shone forth from the grave.

Let no one fear death, for the Savior’s death has set us free: He that was held prisoner of it has annihilated it.

By descending into hell, He made hell captive.

He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh.

And Isaiah, foretelling this, cried: “Hell was embittered when it encountered thee in the lower regions.”

It was embittered, for it was abolished.

It was embittered, for it was mocked.

It was embittered, for it was slain.

It was embittered, for it was overthrown.

It was embittered, for it was fettered in chains.

It took a body, and met God face to face.

It took earth, and encountered heaven.

It took that which was seen, and fell upon the unseen.

O Death, where is your sting?

O Hell, where is your victory?

Christ is risen, and you are overthrown.

Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen.

Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice.

Christ is risen, and life reigns.

Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave.

For Christ, being risen from the dead, is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

To him be glory and dominion unto ages of ages. Amen.[6]

In this sermon, St. John Chrysostom shows us the attitude we should have: feasting with joy when we have high motives to celebrate.  Truly, this is feasting worthy of the name!  What a contrast this is to the unworthy, joyless “feasting” which is merely a “celebrating” of the fact that we are indulging ourselves!

 

Conclusion

Let us Traditional Catholics fast well and then feast well.  Let us enter with all of our hearts and with complete generosity into our fasting, thereby forming a worthy contrast to our joyful celebrating of the great feast to come!



[1]           Quoted from Webster’s Dictionary, found here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feast  Note: In this article, by the word “feasting”, we do not imply over-eating.


[2]           Here is a handy table of the Church’s Traditional rules for fasting and abstaining.  https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/fast-abstinence-basics.html

 


[4]           St. Paul describes worldlings, unwilling to fast, in these words: “[T]hey are enemies of the cross of Christ; whose end is destruction; whose god is their belly; and whose glory is in their shame; who mind earthly things.”  Philippians, 3:18-19.

[6]           We recommend using this sermon as part of sanctifying the up-coming great feast of Easter.

The heresy of denying man is inclined to sin and selfishness

Catholic Candle note:  The article below examines a modernist heresy.  Heresy is an error about the Faith (in contrast to errors on some other subject, such as geometry).  Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas explains this truth:

We are speaking of heresy now as denoting a corruption of the Christian Faith.  Now it does not imply a corruption of the Christian faith, if a man has a false opinion in matters that are not of faith, for instance, in questions of geometry and so forth, which cannot belong to the faith by any means; but only when a person has a false opinion about things belonging to the faith.

Now a thing may be of the faith in two ways, as stated above, in one way, directly and principally, e.g. the articles of faith; in another way, indirectly and secondarily, e.g. those matters, the denial of which leads to the corruption of some article of faith; and there may be heresy in either way, even as there can be faith.

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.11, a.2, respondeo (emphasis added).    

The Catholic religion is the only true religion.  All other religions and all heresies, regardless of how they may conflict with one another, are the devils’ tools to lead people away from the Catholic truth.  

For example, the devil uses modernists (such as Henri de Lubac) to promote the heresy of universal salvation (i.e., “everybody goes to heaven”) by teaching that God gives grace to everyone.[1]

The devil and the conciliar church also promote the heresy of universal salvation by denying original sin and its effects.  

Experience and common sense show us that man, because he has a fallen nature, is naturally inclined more to evil rather than to good.  Though baptism remits original sin from one’s soul, it does not wipe away original sin’s effects: ignorance, malice, weakness and concupiscence.[2] 

St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church, teaches that infants are born with this concupiscence (and this wound is not taken away with baptism).  Here are his words:

Concupiscence, therefore, as the law of sin which remains in the members of this body of death, is born with infants.[3] 

Wise parents know that only a sound Catholic upbringing can correct their children’s natural selfishness and make them good, generous, and loving.

Strangely, the “new” SSPX says that children are “naturally” good and loving.  Here are its words:

Doing good and loving are acts that come naturally to children.[4]

Original sin twists children from their earliest years.  Children who act virtuously do so because of good upbringing.[5]

Further, children learn to do good to obtain the praise they want for themselves, from their parents.  Good parents use praise and other rewards, as part of training their children to be generous and good.  Nonetheless, children, with their fallen nature, “naturally” are selfish and need to be taught generosity.

Conclusion

Let us not be fooled by the “new” SSPX!  Raising children well is hard work because children have a fallen nature (like us) and they are naturally inclined to selfishness and sin.

By failing to appreciate how the wounds of original sin affect children, the N-SSPX shows itself unfit to run schools and direct the souls of parents and children.


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

Again, there are four of the soul's powers that can be the subject of virtue, as stated above (I-II:61:2), viz. the reason, where prudence resides, the will, where justice is, the irascible, the subject of fortitude, and the concupiscible, the subject of temperance. Therefore, in so far as the reason is deprived of its order to the true, there is the wound of ignorance; in so far as the will is deprived of its order of good, there is the wound of malice; in so far as the irascible is deprived of its order to the arduous, there is the wound of weakness; and in so far as the concupiscible is deprived of its order to the delectable, moderated by reason, there is the wound of concupiscence.

Accordingly, these are the four wounds inflicted on the whole of human nature as a result of our first parent’s sin.  But since the inclination to the good of virtue is diminished in each individual on account of actual sin, as was explained above (I-II:1:2), these four wounds are also the result of other sins, in so far as, through sin, the reason is obscured, especially in practical matters, the will hardened to evil, good actions become more difficult and concupiscence more impetuous.

Summa, Ia IIae, Q.85, a.3, respondeo.

[3]          On Infant Baptism, Bk 2, ch.4, in a section entitled Concupiscence, How Far in Us; The Baptized are Not Injured by Concupiscence, But Only by Consent Therewith.

[4]            Regina Coeli Report #285, December 2018 – January 2019, p.7.

[5]          Aristotle explained this truth well, about 350 years before Christ.  Here are his words:

[H]abits are produced from the acts of working like to them: and so what we have to do is to give a certain character to these particular acts, because the habits formed correspond to the differences of these.  So then, whether we are accustomed this way or that straight from childhood, makes not a small but an important difference, or rather I would say it makes all the difference.

Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle, Bk.2, ch.1.