The Role Of Women

 

The muddle-headed R&R Bishop Richard Williamson (1940-2025) was one of the four priests Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated as a bishop on June 30, 1988. I met Williamson when he was a priest in 1985. I found him to be a pompous boor whose high opinion of himself was eclipsed only by his strange and sophomoric views. Each Saturday for years after his expulsion from the SSPX, the baffled bishop would send out his "Eleison Comments" to his followers via e-mail, ostensibly to convince everyone that only his organization has the post-Vatican II situation properly figured out, and to warn people to stay away from sedevacantism. He began almost every issue of his "Comments" with some kindergarten-like rhyme. Here is a small sample:

• The sacrificial Mass once thrown away, How could poor Catholics not go astray?

• Truth which is true excludes all contradiction. "Truth" which admits of error, is truth-fiction.

• While Menzingen is by Rome’s sirens charmed, To keep the Faith, let forewarned be forearmed

He was something of an Ecclesiastical Eminem minus the large record sales. The evil rapper with an eighth grade education could be excused for illogical rants, but not Williamson, who was educated and a cleric. To give one example, Bp. Williamson gave rise to what the late Fr. Cekada called "mentevacantism"--"the mind is vacant."

Williamson came up with a novel idea to escape the iron clad logic of the sedevacantist position: the Conciliar "popes" are not guilty of heresy because of "mind rot" which prevents them from realizing they're heretics. As illogical and goofy as his ideas were, his worst opinions were about women.

According to Fr. John Rizzo, a student of Williamson back in 1983, when the SSPX seminary was in Ridgefield, Connecticut, then-Fr. Williamson made the following remark:

 "He was always insisting that women should not wear pants, because that would be an occasion of sin, that women when married should be subjected to their husbands to such a degree — I'll never forget this — that if the wife misbehaves the husband should be willing to beat her," he said. 

(See npr.org/2009/02/25/101139679/former-student-bishop-often-attacked-judaism#:~:text=%22He%20was%20always%20insisting%20that,tendencies%2C'%20%22%20he%20said; Emphasis mine). 

I absolutely believe Fr. Rizzo to be telling the truth. Williamson made denigrating remarks about women all the time. A few examples:

• He strongly opposed women pursuing higher education, such as attending college or university

• He thought women were benighted and once stated that a female can "do a good imitation of handling ideas, but then she will not be thinking properly as a woman"

• He stated that women can't be professionals because they're vain and that's what they are ostensibly good at doing---"Did this lawyeress check her hairdo before coming into court? If she did, she is a distracted lawyer. If she did not, she is one distorted woman."

(See theguardian.com/world/2009/feb/25/catholic-bishop-richard-williamson#:~:text=Last%20year%20he%20described%20as,she%20is%20one%20distorted%20woman.%22)

Why am I bringing up the ideas of a R&R bishop who went to Judgment last year? In the last few years, and getting more vocal all the time, there are some Traditionalist men (and women) who think Williamson's warped view on women is the teaching of the Church. It is not. The purpose of this post is to demonstrate the role of women in society. No Traditionalist can deny that women are excluded by Divine Positive Law from the clergy. There can never be a valid female deacon, priest, bishop, cardinal, or pope. This post will focus exclusively on a woman's role in the home and in society today.

The solitary dispositive question to be answered has two parts: (a) Can a woman work outside the home? If yes, (b) Are any jobs off limits to a woman, especially those jobs where she exercises authority over men? Below, I attempt to answer the question. In a time without a pope, I submit my opinion to the Judgement of Holy Mother Church, should a true pope reign once more, and will abide by the Magisterial decision as a true Catholic. 

Women and the Natural Law

Here is a simple and straightforward definition from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia:

According to St. Thomas, the natural law is "nothing else than the rational creature's participation in the eternal law" (I-II.91.2). The eternal law is God's wisdom, inasmuch as it is the directive norm of all movement and action. When God willed to give existence to creatures, He willed to ordain and direct them to an end. In the case of inanimate things, this Divine direction is provided for in the nature which God has given to each; in them determinism reigns. Like all the rest of creation, man [herein "man" means "human beings of either sex"] is destined by God to an end, and receives from Him a direction towards this end. This ordination is of a character in harmony with his free intelligent nature. In virtue of his intelligence and free will, man is master of his conduct. Unlike the things of the mere material world he can vary his action, act, or abstain from action, as he pleases. Yet he is not a lawless being in an ordered universe. In the very constitution of his nature, he too has a law laid down for him, reflecting that ordination and direction of all things, which is the eternal law. The rule, then, which God has prescribed for our conduct, is found in our nature itself. Those actions which conform with its tendencies, lead to our destined end, and are thereby constituted right and morally good; those at variance with our nature are wrong and immoral.

There are Traditionalists who argue women working outside the home and/or in positions of authority are contrary to the Natural Law. They claim that women can only work outside the home when absolutely necessary to survive, and they must never have an occupation wherein they would have male subordinates. Some not only say it's wrong for women to be in elected office, but that they should not be allowed to vote. As the "clincher" they cite papal utterances where the pontiff expressed disapproval of women voting. 

The best means of determining if women working outside the home (outside of the need for survival) and being in positions of power is against the Natural Law would be to see what was taught by the last true pope, His Holiness Pope Pius XII (r. 1939-1958). 

 The Use of Allocutions by Pope Pius XII

Pope Pius XII, the last true pope of the Catholic Church before the Great Apostasy, used allocutions the most, as different mediums of communication were coming out. During his reign, he made (excluding canonizations) two ex cathedra pronouncements, one of which was Munificentissimus Deus, defining the dogma of the Assumption of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, body and soul, into Heaven. Most theologians consider Sacramentum Ordinis of 1947 to have been infallible, as it settled what constituted the exact matter and form for all three grades of Holy Orders, and had the definitive language of binding Catholics forever on the subject. 

What is the doctrinal value of non-infallible decrees, when the Ordinary Magisterium makes a pronouncement? Here is an important citation from the encyclical Humani Generis (1950):

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me;" and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. (para. #20; Emphasis mine). 

In his treatise "Authentic Teaching of the Magisterium," theologian Cotter teaches:

The Pope [Pius XII] has no doubt that those Catholic theologians whom he has in mind throughout the encyclical [Humani Generis] are willing to abide by the definitive decisions of the Magisterium, those handed down, solemni iudicio. They are neither heretics nor schismatics. But he complains that they ignore papal pronouncements that come to them with less authority, such as encyclicals. If reputable theologians have disagreed in the past, that assumes that nothing less than a solemn definition can settle the matter; and as long as none such is forthcoming, everyone is presumed free to construe papal documents according to his own interpretation of Tradition.

In reply, the Pope reminds them that encyclicals, besides often containing matters of dogma, may intend to settle points hitherto disputed, and that such decisions demand of themselves a positive assent on the part of the faithful, theologians included. In issuing them the popes exercise what is technically known as the Ordinary or Authentic Magisterium, of which it is true to say: "He that heareth you, heareth Me."

(As cited in Contemporary Moral Theology, [1962], 1:24-26). 

Theologian Cotter notes, though the papal statement refers primarily to encyclicals, it is not restricted to these. Rather, it covers the whole range of what is called the "Ordinary Magisterium" of the Holy Father. Everything that has been said, therefore, could apply to the papal radio messages and allocutions; yet, since these have played such a prominent part in papal teaching (especially under Pope Pius XII), they merit special attention. Pope Pius XII himself, made it strikingly clear that his discourses, even when given to small groups, can contain authoritative teaching for the whole Church. 

In his radio message on the education of the Christian conscience, Pope Pius XII said:

Mindful, however, of the right and duty of the Apostolic See to intervene authoritatively, when the need arises, in moral questions, in the address of 29th October last we set out to enlighten men's consciences on the problems of married life. With the self-same authority we declare today to educators and to young people also that the divine commandment of purity of soul and body still holds without any lesser obligation for the youth of today. 

According to theologian Hurth (consultor to the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office and a staunch anti-Modernist) papal radio addresses and allocutions have the same doctrinal value as encyclicals: they are an integral part of the ordinary teaching of the pope; and, as such, though not infallible, they require both internal and external acceptance. (Ibid, pg. 26). 

The Teaching of Pope Pius XII

Two allocutions show forth the teaching of the Church on the role of women in society: An Address of His Holiness Pope Pius XII to the World Union of Catholic Women's Organizations, April 24, 1952, and An Address To Members of Various Catholic Women's Associations, October 21, 1945.

Here are the pertinent points of Pope Pius XII's teachings:

In his 1945 Address, the pontiff made it clear that his intent was to teach about the duties of women in social and political life. (All emphasis in the text of the Addresses is mine---Introibo)

Your presence in such great numbers before Us, beloved daughters, derives a particular significance from the conditions existing today. For besides the joy which it always gives Us to welcome you, to bless you, and to give you Our fatherly counsel, there is also today the need which We feel, in answer to your own urgent requests, to address you on a subject which is of the very first relevance and importance to our times: We mean the duties of women in social and political life. We had Ourself been looking forward to such an opportunity as this, because the feverish unrest of a troubled present and still more the anxieties about an uncertain future have given woman's position a central interest for the friends, no less than for the enemies, of Christ and His Church.

Men and women are of equal dignity and have different yet complimentary qualities.

As children of God, man and woman have a dignity in which they are absolutely equal; and they are equal, too, in regard to the supreme end of human life, which is everlasting union with God in the happiness of Heaven...But man and woman cannot maintain or perfect this equal dignity of theirs unless they respect and make use of the distinctive qualities which nature has bestowed on each sex: physical and spiritual qualities which are indestructible, and so co-ordinated that their mutual relation cannot be upset without nature itself intervening to re-establish it.

The pope praises woman in the religious life and also women who remain in the single state:

And yet, for nearly twenty centuries, we have seen thousands upon thousands of men and women, and among the best of them, freely renouncing a family of their own and foregoing the holy duties and sacred rights of married life in order to follow the counsel of Christ. And is the common welfare of nations and the good of the Church jeopardized in consequence? On the contrary-----These generous souls recognize the association of the sexes in wedlock as a great good. If they step aside from the ordinary path, if they leave the beaten track, it is not to desert the service of humanity but rather to devote themselves to it with complete detachment and self-denial, and an activity which is incomparably more extended, indeed, all-embracing and universal...

But there is also the Catholic girl who remains unmarried in spite of herself; and she too, if she believes firmly in the Providence of her Heavenly Father, recognizes the voice of the Master in the life that has fallen to her lot. 'The Master is here and calleth for thee.' [John 11: 28] And she answers the call; she abandons the fair dream of her adolescence and young womanhood, surrenders her hope of having a faithful companion to share her life, of making a home and family of her own. In the impossibility of marriage she discerns her own vocation and, sad at heart though resigned, she too devotes herself entirely to the highest and most varied forms of beneficence.

A woman's natural function is to be a mother either physically or spiritually/morally.

Be she married or single, woman's function is seen clearly defined in the lineaments of her sex, in its propensities and special powers. She works side by side with man, but she works in her own way and according to her natural bent. Now a woman's function, a woman's way, a woman's natural bent, is motherhood. Every woman is called to be a mother, mother in the physical sense, or mother m a sense more spiritual and more exalted, yet real none the less.

The pope deplores conditions unfavorable to the family and the dignity of woman. Both Communism and capitalism have had detrimental effects on the woman such that she cannot raise her children properly,

That public life has now for some time been developing in a manner unfavorable to the true welfare of the family and the true welfare of woman, is beyond dispute...Restore woman as soon as possible to her place of honor in the home as housewife and mother! This is the universal cry today. It is as though the world had suddenly awakened in alarm and horror to see the results of a material and technical progress of which it had hitherto been so proud.

The pope condemns the results of a life of a woman who has left her duties as wife and mother for employment. The woman's daughter will be ill suited for the life of a wife and mother.

And this is not all. Her [the daughter of the working woman] mother with the passing of the years has become old before her time; she is worn out and broken by sorrows, anxieties, and work that has overtaxed her strength. When she sees her daughter return home very late at night, far from finding in her a prop and a support, she must herself arise and discharge all the duties of a domestic servant for one who is unaccustomed and unequal to the work of a woman and housewife. The father will be no better off when advancing years, illness, infirmity, unemployment have forced him to depend for his meager support on the good or ill will of his children. How is the august and sacred authority of father and mother dethroned from the seat of its majesty!

Yet, given the current circumstances [1945], women must work to survive in many cases. This is the modern situation. Should women eschew working to improve society? No! They have a positive duty to engage with modern society and make it better with the distinctive characteristics of the female sex.

Are we therefore to conclude, Catholic women and Catholic girls, that you must resist the current which, whether you like it or not, is drawing you into the stream of social and political life? Certainly not...The fact is that woman is kept away from the home, not only by her declared emancipation, but often also by vital necessity, by the need to earn her daily bread. It is therefore useless to preach her return to the home so long as conditions continue which in many cases force her to remain absent from it. And here is the first aspect of the mission in social and political life which now presents itself to you. Into this public life you have entered all of a sudden, forced into it by the social changes we have witnessed. No matter-----you are called upon to take part in it. Would you leave to other women, to those who are actively engineering the ruin of the home or at least conniving at it, the monopoly of organizing the social structure, in which the family forms the principal element of its economic, juridical, spiritual, and moral unity? The fortunes of the family, the fortunes of human society, are at stake; and they are in your hands: 'Tua res agitur!'

   Therefore every woman without exception is under an obligation-----a strict obligation of conscience, mind you!-----not to remain aloof; every woman must go into action, each in her own way, and join in stemming the tides which threaten to engulf the home, in fighting the doctrines which undermine its foundations, in preparing, organizing, and completing its restoration.

Women are called upon to work alongside men for the betterment of society.

This is one motive, calling the Catholic woman to enter on the new path now opening to her activity. But there is another: her dignity as a woman. It is for her to work with man for the welfare of the civitas in which she enjoys a dignity equal with his, and here each sex has its part to play according to its nature, its distinctive qualities, its physical. intellectual. and moral capabilities. Both sexes have the right and the duty to work together for the good of society, for the good of the nation. But it is clear that while man is by temperament more suited to deal with external affairs and public business, generally speaking the woman has a deeper insight for understanding the delicate problems of domestic and family life, and a surer touch in solving them-----which, of course, is not to deny that some women can show great ability in every sphere of public life.

   It is not so much that each sex is called to a different task; the difference is rather in their manner of judging and arriving at concrete and practical applications. Take the case of civil rights, for example; at the present time they are equal for both sexes. But just think how much more intelligently and effectively these rights will be used if men and women pool their resources in using them. The sensibility and delicacy which are characteristic of the woman may perhaps bias her judgment in the direction of her impressions, and so tend to the prejudice of wide and clear vision, cool decision, or far-sighted prudence; but on the other hand they are most valuable aids in discerning the needs, aspirations, and dangers proper to the sphere of domestic life, public assistance, and religion.

A wide field of action is open to women in the public. Here the pope alludes to single women. It can also apply to women who must work, or who have grown children.

 It has been seen that a woman's work is concerned primarily with those tasks and occupations of domestic life which contribute so powerfully, and more powerfully than is generally appreciated, to the true interests of the social community. But the furtherance of those interests calls for a great number of women who will have more leisure at their disposal, and so be able to devote themselves to the task more directly and more completely.

  And where should we find these women if not especially [We do not, of course, say exclusively] among those to whom We have been alluding: those upon whom the force of circumstances has imposed a mysterious vocation; those whom events have destined to a life of solitude which was not in their thoughts or aspirations, and which threatened to be nothing more than a selfishly useless and purposeless existence? And now, behold, their mission at the present day is revealed: a mission many-sided, militant, and calling for all their energies; a mission such as they can more readily undertake than many of their sisters, occupied as they are with family cares and the education of their children, or else subject to the yoke of a religious rule.

  Of these women some have hitherto devoted themselves with a zeal often quite admirable, to parochial activities; others, gifted with wider vision still, have been engaged in more extended work of moral and social improvement. The war, with its calamitous results, has led to a great increase in the number of such women. Many brave men have lost their lives in this terrible conflict, others have come back disabled or sick; many a young woman will therefore await in vain the return of a husband. will vainly hope for the coming of new young lives to cheer a solitary home. And just at this moment new needs, created by the entry of women into civil and political life, have arisen to claim their assistance. Is this nothing more than a strange coincidence? Or are we to see in it a disposition of Divine Providence?

Thus a wide field is opened to woman's activity, an activity primarily intellectual or primarily practical. according to the capabilities and qualities of each individual. To study and explain the place and function of woman in society, her rights and obligations; to be the guide and teacher of her sisters; to correct ideas, dispel prejudices, clear up confusions; to expound and spread the teaching of the Church, as the surest means of defeating error, illusion, and falsehood, and as the most effective method of countering the tactics employed by the enemies of Catholic faith and morals-----here is an immense and urgently important task, without which the active apostolate, however zealous, will give only precarious results.

 But direct action is also necessary, otherwise sound doctrine and solid convictions will remain barren, or at best yield little fruit. This direct action, this effective co-operation in social and political life, in no way alters the distinctive character of woman's activity. Associated with the work of man in the sphere of civil institutions, she will apply herself especially to matters calling for tact, delicacy, the maternal instinct, rather than administrative rigidity. In such questions as those of woman's dignity, a girl's honor and integrity, the protection and education of the child, who better than a woman can understand what is needed? ...  In your actual participation in social and political life much depends upon State legislation and municipal administration. Consequently the vote is for the Catholic woman an important means of fulfilling her strict obligations of conscience, especially at the present time.

The other Address of 1952, Pope Pius XII reiterates that women are in society, not just the home, and can bring peace to the world.

 There is also an external activity because if in other ages the influence of women was restricted to their home and the surrounding s of the home, in our days it extends (whether we like it or not) to even wider fields: to public and social life, to parliaments, to tribunals, to journalism, to the professions and to the trades. May women carry their work of peace into each of these spheres. If indeed all women were to pass from that innate feeling which makes them abhor war, to concrete action to impede war, it would be impossible that the total of such imposing efforts, which bring into play those forces best calculated to move the will, that is piety and love, it would be impossible, We say, that it should fail to attain its end.

Basic Principles Taught by Pope Pius XII:

• Men and women are of equal dignity and worth
• Men and women have complimentary talents
• These talents must be used for the betterment of society
• Women have a maternal calling, physical or spiritual
• Given current circumstances women must work
• Women have a positive duty to work alongside men in making the world Catholic
• Women have a wide field of opportunities for work
• The ideal of wife and mother must be upheld and never denigrated
• Women can and should vote

To those who object that the Addresses are not infallible, and need not be believed OR WORSE, that Pope Pius XII taught something that is immoral, evil, and contrary to Natural Law, you have insurmountable problems.

Christ said to the Apostles: “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me.” (St. Luke 10:16). This means that every Catholic can, and must, listen to the Church teaching as the teaching of Christ Himself. What if a pope is not teaching infallibly? Such teachings are nevertheless protected by the Holy Ghost from teaching any pernicious doctrine. This means the Church cannot teach anything which is contrary to Catholic doctrine or morals, and which would be a sin to embrace. The Church also cannot impose evil disciplines, and thereby prescribe something evil to the faithful, making it sinful to observe; nor can the Church give anything which would constitute an incentive to impiety. 

This completely rules out any possibility of the pope teaching heresy, for the protection of the Holy Ghost precludes it. Theologian Fenton teaches:

To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.

(See "The American Ecclesiastical Review;" [August 1949], “The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals, Part I”, pgs. 144-145). 

Hence, the protection of the Holy Ghost precludes the pope from teaching heresy to the Church. Only in his capacity as a private theologian could he teach heresy. If the false claim is made that these Addresses are not truly the pope teaching but just him speaking as a private person, and he taught something contrary to Natural Law or the Faith, be prepared to become a vacancy-pusher. 

Eugene Pacelli would not be the pope.  As St. Alphonsus Liguori teaches: "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.”(See Oeuvres Completes. 9:232; Emphasis mine). 

Conclusion: While women should ideally be mothers at home or nuns, nothing precludes them from working outside the home when necessary, or when it would not constitute a detriment to her family. Moreover, single women have a wide range of fields open to them when working. All Catholic women are called to be engaged in society with men to make the world better and more Catholic. Women can and should vote. 

Can women hold positions of authority over men? That will be discussed in the next section of this post.

Women in Authority

Note that in his Addresses Pope Pius XII did not state that women could not hold positions of authority over men. However, the absence of a condemnation is not the same as giving approval. From the history of the Church, we see women have held authoritative positions over men as is witnessed by Catholic queens, and the example of St. Joan of Arc, among others. 

Catholic Queens

1. Queen Blanche of France RULED the Kingdom as Queen Regent in the name of her saintly son (King St. Louis IX) from 1226-1235, and is considered one of the most cunning and intelligent rulers by historians. Her shrewd diplomacy gave her son a stronger kingdom than ever when he took the throne at age 21. While she was doing “the job of a man” she raised her son to be a canonized saint (King St. Louis IX specifically credits his mother as the reason he was so devout in his practice of the Faith) and her daughter became Blessed Isabella of France. She had a total of 12 children.

2. Queen Margaret of France RULED the Kingdom when King St. Louis was fighting in the Crusades. She is also seen as an excellent ruler in addition to being the mother of 11 children. Her saintly husband’s motto was “All for God, all for France, all for Margaret”—putting his wife above all but God and country.

3. St. Helena was Roman Empress who utilized her influence to spread Christianity and build churches. She was also the mother of Constantine the Great

I could multiply these examples, but it suffices to show that women having authority is permitted by the Church and cannot therefore be against the Natural Law or sinful. 

Catholic Women Who Led Men in Battle

1. Saint Joan of Arc (1412–1431): Known as the "Maid of Orleans," she claimed divine guidance from Heaven and heard voices telling her to lead the French troops against the English. She was a military commander. She did more than merely advise. Here are three historians who have written on St. Joan's role as an actual military commander, and who led men into battle:

(a) Dr. Kelly Robert DeVries (b. 1956) received his doctorate from the University of Toronto and is an expert in warfare of the Middle Ages. See his 1999 book entitled Joan of Arc: A Military Leader.

(b) Dr. Regine Pernoud (1909-1998) received her doctorate from the Sorbonne in 1935. Read her book Joan of Arc: Her Story published in 1986.

(c) Jonathan Sumption (b. 1948) Was a Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, from 1971 to 1975, teaching and writing, before becoming a barrister. Historian Credentials: Despite lacking a PhD in history (doctorate in law) he is a renowned, award-winning historian (Wolfson History Prize winner) known for his five-volume history of the Hundred Years' War. He covers her extensively in The Hundred Years War, Volume 5: Triumph and Illusion published in (2023).

God chose a woman to lead the army. He could have chosen a man, but didn't. Women leading men is therefore not contrary to Natural Law or sinful. If it were, God would not have allowed it, indeed, could not have allowed it even once. 

2. Matilda of Tuscany, Imperial Vicar and Vice-Queen of Italy, (1046-1115). A powerful medieval noblewoman and key supporter of the papacy, Matilda frequently commanded her armies in person to defend Church interests, earning a reputation as a warrior countess.

3. Joanna of Flanders (1295–1374): Countess of Montfort, she led forces during the War of the Breton Succession. She is famously depicted wearing armor and riding at the head of 300 men to attack an enemy camp, acting as a direct combat leader.

4. Queen Isabella of Castile was Queen of Castile and Leon from 1474 until her death in 1504. Known as "Isabella the Catholic," she was heavily involved in commanding military operations during the Reconquista in Spain, often directing troop strategy and visiting the battlefront to inspire her men.

Conclusion

Therefore, women can be in positions of authority over men. If a woman can be a Head of State or lead an army, she can certainly lead in less important roles. 

Why it is Good for Women to be Educated and Career-Ready

Holy Mother Church, ever solicitous for the well-being of Her children, will allow them to adopt to the world in a non-sinful manner when the circumstances dictate such. As Pope Pius XII taught in his 1952 Address:

There is also an external activity because if in other ages the influence of women was restricted to their home and the surrounding s of the home, in our days it extends (whether we like it or not) to even wider fields: to public and social life, to parliaments, to tribunals, to journalism, to the professions and to the trades.

Since the fall of Catholic countries after Vatican II, it has become exceedingly difficult for a man to raise a family on a single income. Moreover, the divorce rate is through the roof. Divorce and separation are not unknown, even among Traditionalists.

Here are the possibilities:

The Religious Life. There are not many Traditionalist orders. However, it is possible to join one and have a vocation as a nun. What a wonderful life! Fr. DePauw's eldest sister was a medical missionary nun in what was then called The Belgian Congo. She dedicated 50 years of her life making converts in Africa. She was put through school and was a medical doctor. She was able to help people soul and body! Imagine a Traditionalist college where educated nuns could form the development of young women.

Married Life. It is very difficult to find a suitable spouse. Traditionalists are a small group. Most Traditionalist who marry will have to have a spouse of the Vatican II sect, Protestant sect, etc. who is willing to sign the promises under Canon Law and have a mixed marriage. This is tolerated by the Church, and more necessary now than ever imagined pre-Vatican II when Catholics were plentiful.

Also making marriage more difficult is the number of divorced people, as well as Vatican II sect members with phony "annulments." According to several sources the divorce rate in the U.S. for first time marriages is 40-42%. That statistic is something Pope Pius XII could not even have imagined the year he died (1958). (See, e.g., pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/16/8-facts-about-divorce-in-the-united-states). 

College educated people are less likely to get divorced--especially where both spouses are educated. There are still good colleges with good people, like St. Mary's College in Kansas run by the SSPX. Both my wife and I are highly educated and we were not corrupted by the institutions we attended. Having a strong faith is the key. Women can also meet a good man in her career, and then stay home after marriage and children. When the children are grown, she can return to her career and help the world as stated by Pope Pius XII. 

Moreover, what if the woman is abandoned by her spouse? She marries right out of college at 22, has four children by 29, and he leaves her. He could also be a deadbeat dad. Now what? How can this women support her family? Not everyone has wealthy parents. If she has a degree she can get a decent job so as not to wind up in section 8 housing and living on public assistance (a true nightmare, esp. for the children). 

The Single Life. There are some women who do not have a religious vocation and never find a decent man to marry. These women especially can use their unique talents to make the world better and more Catholic, having the most time to give.

This is not "feminism," this is reality. If a man makes a large salary and can afford a stay-at-home wife/mother with several children, God bless them abundantly. This is not the case for most. 

Finally, let me say that there are women who are a disgrace to their gender. The money chasing career women who scorn God, hate children, like abortion, and are convinced misandrists, unfortunately exist. I know many of them; I work and live surrounded by them. Yet, there are those like my wife, Ivy League educated, professional, Christian above all else, and making a difference in the world. 

Objections Considered and Answered

Objection: Do you want women in battle? Who will be the future mothers? 

Answer: No, I'm not advocating for female soldiers. Women should not fight unless necessary, but it is not beyond them to be such. The point is women can lead in battle, not that it is prudent that they should or must do so. God did not have to call St. Joan of Arc to do battle, but He did. He could have selected a man. So even leadership positions of the most difficult kind can be handled by women.

Objection: Biology dictates that women cannot do the same things that men can do.

Answer: I agree. Jobs like construction work, being an oil rig worker, etc. require bodily strength that women will never have like men. These jobs should be handled by men unless an absolute necessity requires a woman to do so. In sports, women have no place competing with men in football, boxing, etc. They would be seriously injured or killed. (However, a woman could compete, in my opinion, in sports like bowling, billiards, and other non-contact sports).

Objection: According to theologians McHugh and Callan “Women should not be compelled to take up an occupation unsuited to their sex.”

Answer: Yes, women should not be compelled to do anything. Occupations requiring physical strength should be left to men.

Objection: Queens ruling over men is an historical exception.

Answer: An exception that proves the rule that women can lead. If it were contrary to Natural Law or Divine Positive Law, popes would have condemned such. Instead, Catholic Queens were esteemed by the Church.

Objection: Pope St. Pius X said in 1906, to an Austrian feminist, “Women electors, women deputies? Oh, no!…Women in Parliaments! That is all we need! The men have already caused enough confusion there! Imagine what would happen if there were women there!” (Hause & Kenny, The Development of the Catholic Women’s Suffrage Movement, pgs. 11-30). Also, In 1909, Pope St. Pius X told French Politicians, “Women can never be man’s equal,” said the Pope [St. Pius X], “and cannot therefore enjoy equal rights. Few women would ever desire to legislate, and those who did would only be classed as eccentrics.” (NYT April 22, 1909). 

How can Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII both be right? 

Answer: Context is the key. In 1909, Pope St. Pius X was trying to preserve traditional gender roles and many Catholic countries existed. In 1945, Pope Pius XII was facing the reality of a world that had become more secularized, and in which women were drawn into the workforce after World War I and especially after World War II.  Both popes believed in gender differentiation, but Pius XII extended that difference to mean women were necessary in public life to protect the social fabric--and they were, both then, and even more so now. Pope Pius XII could be called prescient in retrospect. Just 17 years after his 1947 Address, the Vatican II sect would be born and undo all things Catholic. 

Objection: The man is the head of the family, and St. Paul tells us women cannot even speak in Church. How can a woman rule over men? What if she were the boss of her husband at a company where they both worked? It is disordered.

Answer: I distinguish, that the man is the head of the family, conceded; that he cannot be subject to his wife outside the home in a directive applicable to the job only, denied. I don't think husband and wife working together is ideal--one can work away from the other. Men and women have complementary roles. A woman gives birth and nurtures humans in the physical order. Men give spiritual life and comfort souls as priests in the Church. Men have dominion in Church and, if married, in the home. It doesn't extend in an absolute manner outside the home and in the secular state. 

Conclusion

Men and women have complementary differences. They must use their talents and work side by side to make the world more Catholic. While the woman is subject to the husband, it does not mean he can bully his wife and give her a "Williamson-approved beating." What Williamson said is both illegal in the United States and grossly immoral everywhere. Women can never be clergy, but they are not precluded from many other occupations. 

Let us pray as Saint Therese of Lisieux, “Jesus, help me to simplify my life by learning what You want me to be – and becoming that person.”

Contending For The Faith---Part 51

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

Miracles and "Extraordinary Evidence"

To My Readers: One of the arguments against the truth of the Catholic Faith is to disparage miracles--which would, of course, include the Bodily Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This post is a compilation of various sources, both in print and online, which refute a common atheist claim that miracles do not have sufficient evidence to support them. I take no credit for any of the material herein, except insofar as I have condensed it into a terse post. 

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

There is a claim often made by skeptics that "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence." A person might say by way of illustration, “Listen, if you told me you found a squirrel in your garage, then I’d probably believe you. But if you told me you found a fire-breathing dragon in your garage, I’d be highly skeptical. Why? Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” This slogan exhibits threefold power in conversation. First, it sounds commonsensical and intelligent. Second, it instills anxiety in the believer, who might think: Shoot, unless I come up with extraordinary evidence, there’s no way I can persuade this person. Third, it implicitly sets up a rule that rational people, as opposed to gullible or superstitious ones, must follow.

How do we answer?

The atheist using this slogan has not set out to show that God does not exist. Rather, it allows him to harbor a sweeping skepticism regarding religious claims, specifically about miracles. Since the slogan targets miraculous claims only and not God’s existence generally, we might ask, “That’s an interesting point you make. I’m curious: Could it be true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that God still exists?” This small point has large ramifications. Rather than proposing a reason for atheism, it targets miraculous claims. Yet it should be clear that believing in the possibility of miracles depends on whether a person believes in God.

Is the slogan true? Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? It seems preposterous to suggest it might be false. Do we dare say extraordinary claims don’t require extraordinary evidence? The atheist may say that’s as crazy as believing a friend who says he has a dragon in his garage.

Clarify terms

To judge whether the slogan is true, we must examine the terminology in detail. “Extraordinary claims” and “Extraordinary evidence” sound like impressive phrases, but we have to carefully define terms. So, ask the skeptic what he means. You might say, “What do you mean by extraordinary claims?” The skeptic will likely answer one of two ways. Here’s the first one:

 1. Extraordinary claims involve extremely rare or improbable events.  Rarity, in and of itself, gives no reason to doubt a claim. It would be a rare event for your best friend to win the lottery, but if you had good reasons to think he did, you would not need to doubt it. For example, if you saw the winning ticket or the large check sent to him from the state, that would make it completely rational to believe your friend won the lottery. Next, let’s consider a second possible answer.

2. Extraordinary claims involve the supernatural.  This reveals the true nature of the debate. Our worldview (e.g., Christian theism, pantheism, atheism) dictates how we judge evidence. The atheist believes that supernatural events require extraordinary evidence because he believes that God does not exist, whereas the classical theist considers extraordinary events to be rare but live options because of God’s power to work miracles. You might ask, “If God exists, is an event like raising Jesus from the dead really so extraordinary? It may be rare, but surely it’s something the divine creator could bring about, right?” The obvious answer is yes. If they say no and assert that not even God can do that, then we are not talking about the same God. If God exists, God can do a miracle. So, the question knocks the discussion back a step.

In other words, if we have good reasons to think God exists, then supernatural events can be examined in a way similar to the lottery case. Yes, they may be rare, but if we have good evidence to believe they occurred, we can rationally affirm them. We should not rule them out for lack of “extraordinary evidence.”

 Let’s consider the next part of the slogan and ask, “What do you mean by extraordinary evidence?” Consider a couple of potential replies: 

(a) Extraordinary evidence is evidence that overcomes the exceedingly low intrinsic probability of an event. What does it mean for an event to be “intrinsically” improbable? Scholars debate the best interpretations of probability, but let’s stick with the commonsense notion that it seems highly unlikely the event would occur. However, proceeding along those lines, we find that good, ordinary evidence can be sufficient to overcome intrinsically low probabilities. Again, take the example of your friend winning the lottery. This event has low intrinsic probability in the sense that it seems highly unlikely that your friend will win. This low probability persists even if your friend buys tickets weekly. Nonetheless, if your friend does indeed win, simple, good evidence suffices to show this occurred. This good evidence can take many forms:  

• Your friend calls you telling you he won and wants to celebrate  

• He posts his winning ticket on social media

• Another trustworthy friend calls you to relay the information

Although none of these establishes the event with strict certainty, they all serve as evidence that your friend won the lottery. Yet, who adduced any evidence out of the ordinary here? It seems that mundane, good evidence suffices to show it’s reasonable to believe that an event with intrinsically low probability occurred. 

(b) Extraordinary evidence is evidence that meets an extremely high bar of probability.  On this view, extraordinary evidence establishes an event with, say, 99-plus-percent certainty, or close to it, such that no rational person could ever doubt it. So the skeptic claims. However, we can challenge this assertion. First, observe that theses in other areas often seem to lack this extraordinary evidence. Consider three examples: 

•  Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

•  The minimum wage is a good idea. 

•  It is ethical to murder two innocent people to save a hundred innocent people. 

These stock examples from history, public policy, and ethics underscore the point that an atheist will be hard-pressed to find “extraordinary evidence” of the type he defined in any domain. Sure, he may encounter some good arguments and strong evidence, but there will always be experts who disagree. He will hardly find the 99-plus-percent certainty he pursues.  We can ask the atheist, “Is it irrational to believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, that the minimum wage is a good idea, or that it’s unethical to murder two innocent people to save a hundred? If not, why not? Especially since these claims fail to meet your standards of extraordinary evidence.” The atheist has a couple of options here:

• Lower the bar of what counts as extraordinary evidence to a more reasonable level

• Reply that none of those examples from history or ethics constitute extraordinary claims, so they don’t need extraordinary evidence

If he chooses the first option, then the conversation can resume along the lines that good evidence suffices to establish the rationality of a belief (even if such evidence is rather ordinary). More likely, though, the atheist will argue the second option, maybe adding a point: “The difference is that whether Caesar crossed the Rubicon has no impact on my life. I’m never going to be in those ethical dilemmas. Those answers make no difference. 

If Caesar were saying I had to renounce myself and follow him, that would be a much different story. So yes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you should just admit that you don’t have any.” At this point, we should note the change in terms the skeptic brought into the conversation. Now, it seems that “extraordinary events” are not rare or supernatural events, but rather “rare or supernatural events that dramatically impact our life choices.” We can now proceed with this new addition to the terminology. Of course, if the atheist doesn’t ever make this point, we do not need to answer it; I raise it because it’s a fairly common response.

 Very high bars of evidence for extraordinary claims will prove too much. Note where we are in the discussion. The skeptic says that extraordinary claims that may dramatically impact life must meet a very high bar of evidence. I suggest asking the following question: “Why do extraordinary claims need to meet this special high bar, yet ordinary claims do not?” Why is an especially high bar needed for believing in the resurrection of Jesus that is not required for the answers to public policy questions, ethical dilemmas, or trials by jury? 

Why exactly are extraordinary claims treated in such a special way? Why is this not special pleading? Listen carefully to the answer. First, if he simply points to the rarity or unexpected nature of extraordinary claims, we have already answered that. Second, he might reiterate his point about the supernatural. “Supernatural events are unfathomable and wildly unbelievable in themselves,” says the skeptic. He does not believe in supernatural events, so any such fanciful claims must meet a tremendously high bar of evidence. Here, atheism is presupposed. After that sort of answer, let the discussion turn to God’s existence. If God exists, then he could work a miracle, and thus it could be reasonable to believe in a supernatural event. 

Third, your conversation partner may argue that the importance of a claim renders it in need of extraordinary evidence. In other words, if something makes a big difference in a person’s life, extraordinary evidence is required. However, this cannot be right, since public policy questions and ethical decisions (for example) can make a big difference in someone’s life, yet the skeptic likely does not require extraordinary evidence to take positions on them. 

In response, you might ask, “I’m curious, are you pro-choice or pro-life? Or do you take neither position?” If he has a position on abortion, you might ask, “What extraordinary evidence do you have in favor of that view? After all, it could make a big difference in the lives of many women and unborn humans, depending on how people answer.” It seems inconsistent and special pleading to apply the “extraordinary evidence” requirement to supernatural events and not to all important matters.

We should look for good reasons and good evidence for the things that we believe. Good reasons and evidence suffice to show the rationality of belief in a claim, and if God exists, that can be the case even if a claim is wildly out of the ordinary.

Conclusion: Putting it All Together

Let’s return to the skeptic’s claim about a fire-breathing dragon and explain why it differs from the idea of a Catholic miracle. If an “extraordinary claim” is a rare or supernatural event, then your friend having a fire-breathing dragon in his garage fits that definition. At first, you might think he’s joking, and if you had no additional information, you would be justified in your skepticism. However, suppose instead you asked him more about the dragon. You started looking for clues. You asked if anyone else had seen it. You examined how serious your friend defended his claim. 

In all probability, this investigation would reveal that there never really was a dragon in the garage. However, the miracles that Christians believe in are not like the dragon case, for two reasons. First, because we believe that God performs them for a reason; they are connected with His revelation, not sporadic magic tricks. Second, they are backed up by credible witnesses and early testimony. Anthony Flew, at one time a very famous atheist who later adopted theism, said, “The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.” (See There Is A God, [2009],).

Recognizing The Occult

 

As any regular reader of my blog knows, I've spent many years studying and exposing the occult. Since Vatican II, there has been what I have dubbed "The Occult Explosion," "The Occult Invasion," and "The Occult Revival." Any of those phrases fit. The occult has taken-off ("exploded") and seems ubiquitous in modern life since the end of the Robber Council in 1965. The occult has invaded the homes of the unsuspecting, who are receiving no warnings from the Vatican II sect on occult symbols and practices. The occult is enjoying a revival like never before--perhaps being more pervasive than in Old Testament days before Christ came to redeem us, and when the world was very pagan (and it has become such once more). 

This is the first of a couple of posts I will publish on occult symbolism. I've written much on occult practices and how it influences things like music and movies, but not so much on occult symbols. Sometimes my friends will ask, "I want to buy [certain item they show me] but a writing or a picture on it looks strange. Is it occult?" Good question. Sometimes someone will know something is occult, but they don't know exactly why it's bad, other than the general condemnation of the occult by the Church and found in the Bible. 

This post (and at least one more to follow) will expose occult symbolism, and offer some general advice on what to do if you suspect something may be occult. After all, while many things today are occult, not every symbol or writing we don't understand is automatically "occult." We must learn to discern. You may also be better equipped to help a family member or friend who has some occult symbol in his/her possession and may not realize it, thinking it harmless. 

I claim no credit for any of the material in this post. All I did was compile the research on the occult into a terse and reader-friendly installment on this blog. The material comes from many online and print resources.  I hope you find it useful. Please comment and let me know if you got something out of it.

Occult Symbolism

Occult symbols that once belonged to hidden societies and old spell-books are now everywhere—on store shelves, in fashion, in tattoos, and across social media. The Pentagram, the Hamsa, the Ouroboros, the Ankh—what once felt fringe has become familiar. Since Vatican II sent the One True Church underground (so to speak), the occult has been repackaged and popularized by those doing Satan's work. 

In our modern world, the same symbol can function very differently depending on intent, understanding, and context. There are many who wear or have occult symbols. These people fall into one of three (3) categories:

• The casual user wears or has them for style, culture, or personal meaning, largely unaware of their spiritual claims

• The occult "dabbler" looks for help, healing, protection, identity, or “energy,” without considering the source of that power

• The committed occultist understands the symbol’s meaning and intentionally uses it within an occult/pagan worldview

The differences don't make the symbols any less occult, but they can (and should) change how we respond when trying to rescue someone from occult influences. Symbols communicate. They carry meaning even when the wearer has no intention of making a statement. In medio stat veritas--"in the middle lies the truth." Two equal and opposite errors arise from some Traditionalists and others, (a) "it's just art" so you can use any symbol and it's OK, not to worry; (b) "every symbol is dangerous and a sin to have/display." I can not possibly cover all symbols, even in multiple posts.

So how do we discern symbols? There are four (4) vital questions you must ask yourself as outlined below.

Discerning Symbols

 When deciding whether to buy, wear, or display a symbol, consider these four questions.

What does it communicate?

Even if you mean “it’s just a design,” what does it signal to others? Some symbols overtly align with an occult worldview—self-divinization, power through-ritual, or impersonal divinity. Symbols such as the Pentagram, Sigil of Baphomet, Leviathan Cross, and Sigil of Lucifer fall into this category. These can be rejected without further evaluation. 

Other symbols are more flexible and require discernment. Ask: 

Does this create confusion about what I believe? Does it publicly associate me with a false worldview that is non-/anti- Traditionalist? If so, that alone is reason to reject the symbol. It could cause scandal.

What is it connected to---i.e., consider both its function and setting. 

For example, a crescent moon on a child's pajamas most probably represents nighttime and going to sleep for the night. A crescent moon on a pendent and sold as a "charm" is most probably an occult talisman, or if it has Arabic letters, it is probably offering praise to "Allah" the false moon god of Mohammedans. A crystal on display in the context of many different rocks is probably connected to geology, whereas a crystal sold to give you "good vibes" is occult.

What is your intent?

Be honest with yourself. If you are seeking power, protection, guidance, identity, control, or peace from the symbol itself, you are assigning it spiritual power. Spiritual power does reside in e.g., a blessed statue of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, which power comes from God through the blessing of His priest. We must not do this with symbols not expressly approved and blessed by the Church.

What kind of reaction do you get from it?

After displaying it/wearing it/engaging with it, do you notice fear, anxiety, or obsession with it? Does it cause you to consider looking up certain spiritual practices (non-Church approved) that you wouldn't otherwise do? This is the test given to us by Our Lord Himself: "By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit." (St. Matthew 7:16-17). 

Ancient Pagan Symbols Tied to the Occult

These symbols originate in pagan religious systems that located divinity within creation itself, treating the natural world as sacred rather than as a gift pointing beyond itself to the Creator. The occult and pagan worldviews have much in common. The occult teaches, "God" is within you. Pantheism (God and the world are one) and panentheism (God is in creation as a soul in a body) pervade both occult and pagan teachings. 

The Ankh

Meaning: Clutching at immortality. It represents the “breath of life” as a force to be possessed rather than a gift to be received. It is the ultimate symbol of vitality and fertility, a visual hope that life can be extended and death cheated through the right knowledge and power. 

Origin: Dating to around 3150 BC, it appeared in Egyptian art as gods bestowed the ankh to pharaohs, symbolizing immortality. Its precise origin is debated—theories include a sandal strap, the Knot of Isis (a fertility symbol), or the union of Osiris and Isis representing life’s creation. 

Uses Today: Worn as jewelry or tattooed as a charm, often signaling an affinity with esoteric wisdom, Neopaganism, or African cultural identity; it typically expresses belief in an impersonal “life force” that can be drawn upon for energy or protection. Some women use it to signal they are fertile and available--especially if worn as long earrings. 

Why it should not be used: Eternal life comes from Christ through His One True Church. The Ankh is pagan in origin, and is a sign that eternal life comes from an impersonal force. For women it sends an impure message, even if unintended.

Eye of Horus

Meaning: A watcher that never blinks. It is a talisman of paranoia, worn to ward off the “evil eye” and darker spirits. Its design mimics the falcon’s eye with a teardrop marking, symbolizing fractions of the senses (sight, smell, thought). It promises that if you wear the right drawing (the Eye of Horus, aka Wedjat), you are safe from the invisible malice of the spiritual world.

 

Origin: Born from a god’s mutilation. In Egyptian myth, the falcon god Horus has its eye torn out in a violent battle with Set and magically restored. It became the prototype for the “amulet”—a damaged thing made whole, used to protect the living and the dead. 

Uses Today: Worn as jewelry and tattoos, often signaling affinity with ancient Egyptian wisdom or protection beliefs. Popular in occult contexts as a talisman for warding off harm and accessing spiritual insight. 

Why it should not be used: It has a decidedly pagan origin and offers "protection"--not from God---against "spirits." It is an implicit calling upon evil, and also is an indirect denial of God's protection by substituting an impotent pagan symbol. 

The Celtic Triskele

Meaning: The dizzying spin of existence. The three interlocking spirals suggest that reality is an endless loop of motion—life, death, rebirth; past, present, future; land, sea, sky. It denies the “End” of history, offering instead the comfort (and trap) of eternal recurrence. A symbol of heretical/pagan/occult reincarnation

Origin: Carved into the rock of Newgrange 5,000 years ago, these spirals predate the Celts. They are the ancient world’s attempt to map the feeling of time moving forward while seasons cycle back. Celts adopted and expanded the motif into intricate knotwork appearing on stonework, manuscripts, and jewelry. 

Uses Today: Popular in jewelry, tattoos, and festival branding. Used as a devotional emblem in Neopagan communities to represent the goddess’s triple aspect and cyclical rebirth. 

Why it should not be used: It's a symbol of reincarnation; nothing more need be said.

Kabbalistic Tree of Life

Meaning: The "ladder to godhood." This complex diagram maps the human attempt to climb back to heaven. It claims that through intellectual effort, we can ascend the ten spheres (sefirot) connected by 22 path; climbing from the earthly Kingdom (Malkuth) to the Divine Crown (Kether). 

Origin: Jewish mysticism’s answer to the problem of distance. Later adopted by Western ceremonial magicians (like the Golden Dawn), it became a roadmap for “pathworking," i.e., using the mind to travel spiritual dimensions. 

Uses Today: Appears as home décor, pendants, yoga-studio art, and occult diagrams. Used as a map for pathworking and astral projection, where practitioners symbolically ascend the spheres to access higher consciousness or gnosis. 

Why it should not be used: Jewish-occult symbol that mocks God. We don't "ascend to become God," rather God descended to become one of us and reconcile sinners to Himself (St. John 1:14). 

Conclusion

Symbols have deep meaning and are important. They link things tangible to realities that are intangible. We can't see love, but when a man brings red roses to his wife, love is symbolized. The ultimate symbol of love is the crucifix, God died so we may live forever. Those are wonderful symbols. However, when the symbol is linked to intangible evils by symbolizing heresies, immoralities and calling upon (evil) spirits for "protection" they become an invitation (wittingly or not) for evil to enter your life. Invite evil in and it will take you up on your request. 

Heretical Body Language: Wojtyla's "Theology Of The Body"

 

The Theology of the Body (TOB) is the brainchild of Karol Wojtyla (aka "Pope" John Paul II) leader of the Vatican II sect from 1978 to 2005. There has been much discussion about it and "conservative" sect members/apologists gush of how "Catholic" it is, and allege it is a great development of doctrine. Indeed, his TOB is so convoluted and difficult for the average reader, there are entire books and courses dedicated to explaining TOB. The whole idea is to "sound profound" even when you're not. After all, if it requires a lot to understand it, it must be very cerebral and "our pope is a genius." When Wojtyla is original he's Modernist, and when he says something Catholic, it's never original. 

This post will expose Wojtyla's TOB for the Modernist dung it is, and explain why it is anything but "original" and "a development of Catholic doctrine." (N.B. I have collected this material from many sources, both online and in print, and I take no credit for any of it except for condensing the information into a terse post and adding some commentary.---Introibo).

What is TOB?

It is the teaching of Wojtyla that first grew out of lectures he gave in 1958 and 1959. They were published in book form in 1960 under the title Love and Responsibility. In his lectures he begins the assault on the traditional teaching of the Church about the primary and secondary ends of marriage. The procreation and education of children (primary end) and mutual love and support of the spouses (secondary end) are jettisoned in favor of "interpersonal relations," "love" and "responsibility."

Wojtyla had a disdain for Neo-Scholasticism, and was a proponent of the heretical philosophies of personalism and phenomenology. When he was writing his thesis for his Doctorate in Theology, the great theologian Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange was his advisor. His dissertation on The Doctrine of Faith in St. John of the Cross was so full of error in its first proposed draft, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange wrote "you are not Catholic" on the paper and failed him. Wojtyla's ecclesiastical protector, Adam Cardinal Sapieha, intervened on behalf of the Polish heretic and had the decision reversed when revision was made. (Apologists try and sanitize Wojtyla's background by stating he wasn't actually failed, but only that Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange "disagreed." Yet, those with connections in the Vatican [Fr. DePauw among them] knew the truth). 

His 1953 dissertation for his Doctorate in Philosophy was on philosopher Max Scheler (pronounced SHAY-ler, 1859-1938), a prominent proponent of phenomenology. Phenomenology, in brief, attempts to base human knowledge on the "phenomena," that is, what appears to the human mind, rather than on an exploration of external existing things. Whether a thing truly exists or not is unimportant to a phenomenologist; only what he cogitates exists for him. One can easily see how this philosophy is one of the Modernist "subjectivist" philosophies, basing itself not on an external reality or standard, but upon one's own personal conceptions. Thus, it easily leads to moral relativism and dependence upon personal or subjective opinion ("what feels good") as opposed to external or objective reality (e.g., the Ten Commandments).

As Pope St. Pius X taught about Thomism:

St. Thomas perfected and augmented still further by the almost angelic quality of his intellect all this superb patrimony of wisdom which he inherited from his predecessors and applied it to prepare, illustrate and protect sacred doctrine in the minds of men (In Librum Boethii de Trinitate, quaest, ii, 3). Sound reason suggests that it would be foolish to neglect it and religion will not suffer it to be in any way attenuated. And rightly, because, if Catholic doctrine is once deprived of this strong bulwark, it is useless to seek the slightest assistance for its defense in a philosophy whose principles are either common to the errors of materialism, monism, pantheism, socialism and modernism, or certainly not opposed to such systems. The reason is that the capital theses in the philosophy of St. Thomas are not to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being debated one way or another, but are to be considered as the foundations upon which the whole science of natural and divine things is based; if such principles are once removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily follow that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the dogmas of divine revelation are proposed by the magistracy of the Church. (See Doctoris Angelici, June 29, 1914; Emphasis mine).  Wojtyla hated Neo-Scholasticism, especially its Thomistic expression. Keep this in mind when you think about TOB. 

According to a Vatican II sect source in support of TOB:

The “Theology of the Body” is St. John Paul II's integrated vision of the human person. The human body has a specific meaning, making visible an invisible reality, and is capable of revealing answers regarding fundamental questions about us and our lives:

• Is there a real purpose to life and if so, what is it?
• What does it mean that we were created in the image of God?
• Why were we created male and female? Does it really matter if we are one sex or another?
• What does the marital union of a man and woman say to us about God and his plan for our lives?
• What is the purpose of the married and celibate vocations?
• What exactly is "Love"?
• Is it truly possible to be pure of heart?

All of these questions, and many more, are answered in the 129 Wednesday audiences popularly known as the “Theology of the Body,” delivered by St. John Paul II between 1979 and 1984. 

(See theologyofthebody.net)

Therefore, TOB culminated with Wojtyla's speeches, and became a book, (made expanded and "definitive" in 2006) entitled Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body.

Wojtyla said his purpose in putting forth TOB was "born principally of the need to put the norms of Catholic sexual morality on a firm basis, a basis as definitive as possible, relying on the most elementary and incontrovertible moral truths and the most fundamental values or goods," most especially the good of the person within the context of "love and responsibility." (See Love and Responsibility, [1981], pg. 16). The implication is crystal clear: the Church had to wait over 1,900 years for Wojtyla to put Catholic morality on a solid basis because the Natural Law, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterial teaching were inadequate. That's blasphemous (at best) and a denial of the Church's ability to teach the faithful (at worst). 

The Main Heretical Teachings of TOB

There are three (3) fundamental heretical teachings of TOB:

• a false idea of Man as Imago Dei (Image of God) opposed to the true idea
• the ends of marriage are changed
• the false notion of "total giving" in marriage

 There are more than these, but in my opinion, these are the three most deadly errors. Each will be examined.

Man in no longer the Image of God, but the Outline of God.

For St. Thomas, the soul is superior to the body—more noble, possessing its act of being and sharing it with the body—such that man is constituted a person by his spiritual nature. Wojtyla, however, specifies in the notes to his Audience of November 14, 1979, that, “In the conception of the oldest books of the Bible, the dualist opposition ‘body-soul’ does not appear. As we have already pointed out, we may rather speak of a complementary combination ‘body-life.’ The body is the expression of the personality of man.”

This failure to distinguish explicitly the soul and its operations as superior to the body means that the TOB redefines the notion of man as “image of God.” Thus, St. Thomas’s statement, citing Augustine, that man is in the image of God by his mind only, has no place in a heretical phenomenological system, which philosophy Wojtyla embraces. He must therefore redefine “image of God” into an object of phenomenological study: it is a picture, an external representation of God. Better still, it is an experience. (Vatican II-speak). The full awareness of the meaning of the body takes place in the mutual “knowing” of man and woman; their physical union(sex) becomes a "language," expressing the nature of God to the world and to themselves: “This language of the body becomes so to speak a prophecy of the body.” (See Wojtyla's audience of Aug. 22, 1984). 

Man is capax Dei (has capacity for God) by his soul, by nature, by “creation” as Augustine says. This openness of nature allows for the entry of grace into his soul, and a new manner of being “to the image of God” by a union of theological virtue: imperfectly, as image of grace, and perfectly, as image of glory. (See Summa Theologica I, q. 93, a. 4) This properly theological union is impossible in a “theology of the body” precisely because the soul is not clearly distinguished as being, by nature, the place of encounter with God. Nor is there possibility of distinction between natural image and image by grace or glory. 

In Wojtyla's phenomenological TOB, humans approach God by a purer union with another human; by becoming "more fully gift to another," humanity more fully resembles God. A recovery of the image of God and of the original “innocence of heart” depend on living in marriage as "mutual gift." (See Wojtyla, April 2, 1980, “Marriage in the Integral Vision of Man”: “Those who seek the accomplishment of their own human and Christian vocation in marriage are called, first of all, to make this theology of the body... the content of their life and behavior.”). 

Changing the Ends of Marriage.

Wojtyla was greatly influenced by Fr. Herbert Doms, also an admirer of Max Scheler. Doms was a censured theologian. In 1935, he wrote a book entitled About the Meaning and Purpose of Marriage. In his book, Doms claimed that since every act of sexual intercourse does not result in a child being conceived, the primary purpose of marriage is not procreation but rather in the personal fulfilment of men and women as persons. Doms wrote:

In the perfect act, worthy of human beings, the two partners grasp each other reciprocally in intimate love; that is spiritually they reciprocally give themselves in an act which contains the abandonment  and enjoyment of the whole person and is not simply an isolated activity of organs. (As cited in John T. Noonan, Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, [1965], pg. 497). 

In 1939, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office condemned Doms book and prohibited it from being used in any Catholic institution. It was placed on The Index. 

According to theologian Sola, in the 20th century there arose certain authors (e.g., theologians Doms and Krempel) who proposed a theory that the essence of marriage consists it the mutual perfection of the spouses. For these (censured) theologians, the primary purpose of marriage is the spiritual coming together of the spouses. Therefore, from the union various "goods or fruits" are the result: personal fulfilment, and in the biological order, procreation and education of children, resulting in the total perfection of marriage. 

Hence, the Holy Office published this decree:

[In certain writings it is asserted] that the primary purpose of matrimony is not the generation of offspring, or that the secondary purposes are not subordinate to the primary purpose, but are independent of it.

In these works different primary purposes of marriage are designated by other writers, as for example: the complement and personal perfection of the spouses through a complete mutual participation in life and action; mutual love and union of spouses to be nurtured and perfected by the psychic and bodily surrender of one’s own person; and many other such things.

In the same writings a sense is sometimes attributed to words in the current documents of the Church (as for example, primary, secondary purpose), which does not agree with these words according to the common usage by theologians.

This revolutionary way of thinking and speaking aims to foster errors and uncertainties, to avoid which the Most Eminent and Very Reverend Fathers of this supreme Sacred Congregation, charged with the guarding of matters of faith and morals, in a plenary session, on Wednesday, the 28th of March, 1944, when the question was proposed to them “Whether the opinion of certain recent persons can be admitted, who either deny that the primary purpose of matrimony is the generation and raising of offspring, or teach that the secondary purposes are not essentially subordinate to the primary purpose, but are equally first and independent," have decreed that the answer must be: In the negative.

(See Sacrae Theologiae Summa, IVB,[1956], pg. 154). 

Since TOB's marital and sexual ethics are an "ethics of love," spousal love becomes the unique goal of marriage and sexuality. This however excludes the goal to which marriage and sexuality have been oriented by the Creator, namely procreation. In scholastic terms the finis operantis (the goal of the worker) ousts, or at least casts into shade, the finis operis (the goal of the work). TOB comes into conflict with Church teaching concerning the order of the ends of marriage. This teaching holds that the first end of marriage is the procreation (and education) of children, and that the second is the love of the spouses. 

It was Vatican II that rehabilitated the censured theologians, and put this heretical tenet into the sect's teachings. The perennial teaching of the Church is enshrined in the 1917 Code of Canon Law: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children; the secondary [end] is mutual support and a remedy for concupiscence” (Canon 1013, section 1). Beginning with the document Gaudium et Spes ("Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World"), Church teaching was undermined regarding Holy Matrimony. For the first time, instead of teaching about the "ends of marriage," the "benefits and purposes" of marriage are discussed. These "benefits and purposes" are written about without any distinction between which are primary and secondary, and no mention of any particular one(s) being subordinate to others. 

This led up to the memorialization of the heretical tenet in Wojtyla's 1983 Code of Canon Law with the ends of marriage inverted:

The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized. (Canon 1055, section 1). 

Marriage as "total giving."

This stems from Wojtyla's personalism. Personalism is defined as follows: "Personalism posits ultimate reality and value in personhood – human as well as (at least for most personalists) divine. It emphasizes the significance, uniqueness and inviolability of the person, as well as the person’s essentially relational or social dimension." (See plato.stanford.edu/entries/personalism/#WhaPer). Personalists like Wojtyla in his TOB, sees marriage as "total self-giving." 

Catholic Tradition does not view marital and sexual love in such a way. Marital love is a love of the will, more particularly as a love of friendship and companionship involving mutual assistance to the point of self-sacrifice, which encompasses sexual love. Tradition views the latter love as a love of the senses disordered by Original Sin, which must accordingly be moderated by, and as much as possible assumed into, the love of the will. Both forms of love must for Christians be elevated by Grace to the supernatural love of Charity. Moreover, you must love GOD with all your might, mind, soul, etc. and your neighbor (other humans) to the LESSER degree that you love yourself.

TOB: Possibly Undermining the Sacredness of Human Life

Wojtyla would always trumpet his pro-life credentials as a way to win support from gullible members of the Vatican II sect that he was a "conservative pope." To give credit where credit is due, Wojtyla always did say the right things about the evil of abortion. Ironically, his personalism can potentially undermine pro-life principles. Wojtyla makes a distinction between human beings and personhood. 

A human being is an individual with a human nature. Human nature is a part of external, objective reality. Human nature is also shared. Every human being has the same nature as everybody else. Finally, human nature gives every human being a certain amount of dignity. A person, for Wojtyla, is a subject of lived experience. Personhood, unlike human nature, is part of the internal subjective world. Also, unlike human nature, personhood is not shared. Every person has unique personhood, given by his entirely unique interiority and self-reflective experience. This unique personhood raises the person’s dignity to an even higher level than that of a mere human being. 

Personism is a moral framework that ties ethical rights to the concept of "personhood"—defined by capabilities like self-awareness, rationality, and desiring to continue existing—rather than species membership. It originated with the detestable philosopher Peter Singer (b. 1946). According the personists, many human beings are not persons. Unborn children, for example, are human beings but not persons because they lack self-awareness. Personists, such as Peter Singer, use personism to justify abortion and even infanticide. Singer says that persons have great value and should be protected, but mere human beings have less value. So killing non-self-aware infants (who aren’t persons) is not such a big deal.     

To his credit, Wojtyla disagrees, but on what basis when he agrees with most of Singer's basic principles? The infusion of the soul? Is the soul self-aware at animation of the body? To the best of my knowledge and belief, Wojtyla never addressed this point. TOB with its personalism and phenomenology seems to undercut Church teaching in this area.

Conclusion

The "Theology of the Body" is more Modernist theology from John Paul the Great Apostate. How can you even have such a "theology" when the animating principle of the body is the soul, without which the body is but a mere corpse? Many people think it upholds traditional teaching when, in fact, Church teaching is denied and/or undermined. In exalting the body, Wojtyla is corrupting minds and souls. "And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in Hell." (St. Matthew 10:28).