The following summary of an article in Crisis magazine postulates that feminism might be a heresy.
You might be surprised to hear feminism described as a “heresy”.
You may assume that the feminist movement simply asserts that women are full members of the human race, equal to men in dignity and intellect, and equally deserving of opportunities to develop their gifts. In fact, feminism is harder to pin down than many of the errors addressed by my fellow authors, because its advocates typically avoid defining the term. In consequence, “feminism” takes on whatever colour a listener gives it. So persistent is this ambiguity that, even now, few have more than a vague notion of its real nature.
Some highly reputable Catholics call themselves “pro-life feminists,” and maintain that feminism, if it could be purged of its attachment to abortion on demand, would be fundamentally good and compatible with the Faith.
Test Yourself: Are You a Feminist?
Few young women today aspire to emulate the ferocious, bra-burning militants of the 1960s. As mounting numbers of college students tell pollsters they question the morality of most abortions, old feminist slogans like “Abortion on Demand, Without Apology” make sane people wince. Nevertheless, most of us in the West have, often unwittingly, absorbed feminist premises that involve a wholesale re-evaluation of human nature and family life, and are in many respects incompatible with Christianity.

At its core, Feminism teaches that:
Men and women tend to behave differently because of social conditioning, not because there are innate biological and psychological differences between them.
The chief reason women have been less often represented in the first ranks of public achievement in scholarship, the arts, politics, and war, is that in every human society of which we have evidence, throughout all of recorded history, they were repressed by a patriarchal power structure maintained through force and indoctrination.
Because large numbers of children in a family constitute both a barrier to the advancement of women and a threat to our ecology, small families should be the cultural norm.
It is unjust that the consequences of sexual behaviour are biologically unequal for men and women. As much as possible, those consequences must be equalised through medical technology and reformed cultural attitudes.
To find meaning in their lives, women should look first to their careers, rather than to their role as lifegivers, culture bearers, nurturers, and educators of the next generation of human beings.
Women who regard themselves as mothers first are wasting their education and smothering their talents by staying home to raise their children.

Thirty years of close study of feminism in action, as well as reading hundreds of books written by its advocates, and attending scores of conferences held by feminists who called themselves Catholics (or at least “religious”), inform these conclusions. Reflect on them, and ask yourself honestly: Does some part of you accept one or more of them? If so, then you have, to that degree, been infected with the feminist virus.
— Full article (


  1. Feminism and Humanae Vitae
    In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his infallible encyclical, Humanae Vitae. Humanae Vitae re-affirmed and expressed anew the Church’s constant teaching that contraception is a perversion and intrinsic evil offending against the Natural Law.

    Although this was a re-affirmation of the Church’s constant teaching, re-assessed because of the development of the oral contraceptive, many Catholics were dismayed. They were (a) those who wanted the Church to change its constant teaching because they wanted to avail of contraception or, in most cases, were already availing of contraception, and (b) those who had been persuaded by (a) that contraception would be approved. (a) were sinful, (b) were foolish.

    And they didn’t put aside their dismay in a spirit of respect for the Magisterium. Indeed their strident public dissent was a scandal.

    So, in the event, Humanae Vitae explicated the premises for the Church’s constant teaching, and also set down a number of foreseeable consequences of contraceptive practice, especially widespread contraceptive practice.

    The encyclical mentioned

    – marital infidelity;
    – promiscuity;
    – diminished respect for women, and reduction of women to sexual objects;
    – assumption by public authorities of the role of “managing” the sexual lifestyles of citizens, including such as promotion and distribution of contraceptives by public authorities, perhaps coercively.

    We all recognise that those consequences have come to pass, in spades. And many others besides.

    Contraceptive Mentality
    The development of the contraceptive pill was a wonderful thing for the lesbians who had long resented the place of women in the world of employment.

    Because our society recognised that the essential purpose of women is to be nurturing mothers, women were regarded as “temporary” employees. For that reason, and because men were expected to be breadwinners, women were generally restricted to certain “feminine” occupations, and men were paid higher remuneration, even if performing identical duties.

    That worked fine for women who did go on to marry, have children and stay at home to care for them and their husbands. But it worked against the interests of lesbians, who had no such intentions, and who, as mentioned above, resented being disadvantaged in the workplace. And lesbians were then regarded as the perverts they are. So, they could not progress their position by “outing” themselves, on the contrary.

    Bring on the contraceptive pill, which, if presented with devilish cunning, could turn almost all working women into quasi lesbians – women who could choose to put paid employment ahead of motherhood.

    As we know, the lesbians and their unwitting allies launched into Women’s Liberation cum Feminism, and the ready availability of the Pill was the chassis upon which their bandwagon was constructed. With the assistance of news, current affairs and entertainment media, the feminists achieved spectacular success in making lesbians indistinguishable from all the other women who now chose, or were intimidated into taking, permanent paid employment outside their homes, and placed their few children, if any, in care.

    What consequences have we seen mushroom from feminism and its contraceptive mentality ?

    Devastation of the Family – Divorce, De Facto Marriages, …..
    Anyone who has some intellect and some honesty acknowledges that the family is the basic unit of the community. Persons as different as Mao Tse Tung and Pope John Paul II have declared that a community is only as healthy as its families. Dysfunctional families produce a dysfunctional community.

    The bedrock of a healthy family is marriage – the public permanent commitment of a man and a woman to each other and their children.

    Divorce not only devastates individual families, it devastates the marriage institution.

    When either spouse reneges on his or her solemn wedding promise, and dissolves his/her marriage with the support of the public authority, that tends to rob “solemn promise” of its meaning and purpose. When a community begins to accept that promises may be broken without consequence, that community begins to break down. When wedding vows of permanent commitment may be broken without consequence, marriage and the family begin to break down.

    For that reason, divorce was considered scandalous in our community, and was difficult to procure.

    As foreseen by Pope Paul VI, wholesale contraception brought wholesale marital infidelity. Wholesale marital infidelity brought a huge demand for divorce. In accession to that demand, divorce was made easy (“no fault”) in New Zealand in 1980. In 1900, there were one hundred and eleven divorces granted in New Zealand; in 1980 the number was over 7,000; in 1982 the number was over 12,000.

    De Facto Marriages
    While the contraceptive mentality was wrecking the family through marital infidelity and divorce, general sexual licence was growing apace. Pre-marital sexual intimacy began to become the norm.

    With easy divorce making a mockery of marriage, and with the Pill having removed worry of pregnancy from sexual relations, people said “Who needs marriage ? Let’s just live together and enjoy unrestricted sex for as long as it suits us.”

    And so marriage has become just an option, while living in sin has become the norm in our community, especially among the young. De facto marriages further devastate marriage and the family by disregarding any public permanent commitment of the parties to each other and their children.

    Discipline in the family – the villainy that arises from the lack of it
    When the contraceptive mentality of feminism took mothers from their homes into the workforce, it left their school-age children unsupervised after school. The devil makes work for idle hands, especially unsupervised idle hands.

    Everyone knows how our crime rate has skyrocketted since the 1960s, since feminism took a hold. When the young are left to do what they like, they almost always don’t do good. Even if all they do is play computer games, watch television or search the internet, all of those are often very bad influences and lead to the formation of vile attitudes and vile behaviour.

    The neighbourhood
    When those wives and mothers forsook their homes for the workforce, they left our neighbourhoods empty. Neighbourhoods have been, and remain, vitally important to communities.

    Neighbourhoods are support groups. Neighbouring young mothers are able to socialise with one another and help one another in various ways, all the while building a valuable community unit.

    Neighbours also provide additional supervision of neighbourhood children, especially teenagers, after school.

    The contraceptive mentality has destroyed neighbourhood; without neighbourhoods a community is dysfunctional.

    Not only do neighbourhoods cultivate better behaved local communities, they also make neighbours safer. Strangers who might be villains are quickly identified and kept an eye on.

    The flip-side of this is that women who do stay at home in deserted suburbs are no longer able to avail of the wisdom/experience of similar mothers. Worse, much worse, is that those women who are at home in deserted suburbs are not safe. Think Tania Furlan, Joanne McCarthy…..

    For some decades now, unemployment has been a political hot potato. At every general election, political parties are expected to wheel out their policy that’s going to provide more jobs and less unemployment. Needless to say, they never strike upon a policy which succeeds or will ever succeed, because they refuse to acknowledge the cause of our country’s “unemployment”.

    I place unemployment in quotation marks because N.Z. does not, in fact, have unemployment; it has record employment.

    In the 1960s no-one spoke of unemployment because no-one who wanted a job was without one. In 1961, 35% of the New Zealand population was in full-time paid employment. In 1999, the New Zealand population had grown by apprx 50% but again 35% of the population was in full-time paid employment. (These figures were supplied by the Department of Statistics when I was doing some research apprx ten years ago. Subsequent years would show the same data.)

    In fact, if you were to take into account part-time paid employment, employment in 1999 was higher than in 1961.

    So, how come we didn’t have unemployment in 1961 but we did have “unemployment” in 1999, as we continue to do ? Well, it’s that contraceptive mentality again.

    In 1961, women married relatively young, had children quite quickly, and stayed home to care for them and their husbands. In 1999, however, young women and young mothers were competing in the finite workforce.

    Jobs don’t just materialise because hordes of women descend upon the workforce marketplace. As seen above, full-time jobs are available to 35% of the population of a developed country. 65% of the population are unemployed. But that’s fine when that 65% comprise children and mothers and the retired, as they did in 1961.

    But in 1999, the 35% employed included a large number of young wives/mothers; consequently, the 65% unemployed included a large number of “bread winners” whose jobs had been taken by young married (or de facto) women and mothers. Those bread winners became unemployment statistics, and their families became impoverished. Thus the Unemployment Benefit.

    This began long before 1999. Although an Unemployment Benefit was established in New Zealand during the Depression in 1938, in the 1970s the “demand” began to skyrocket, and significant enhancements were made to unemployment policy and benefits to accommodate that “need”. And, while many households suffer from lack of employment, surviving by Unemployment Benefit, very many households enjoy the affluence of multiple incomes.

    Pope Paul VI said “What you have that you don’t need doesn’t belong to you; it belongs to some-one who needs it”. And that applies to a paid job.

    Modern unemployment, and its financial and social cost, is caused almost entirely by the demand for employment of wives/mothers. And that’s another product of the contraceptive mentality.

    Voluntary charitable organisations
    Before women were coerced into joining and remaining in the workforce, many married women used spare time as volunteers in charitable organisations. Not only did they provide much helpful assistance to those organisations and their clients, but also they helped those organisations to survive on minimal funding.

    Now, many such charitable organisations have disappeared, and others have become staffed by professionals requiring significant funding. That cost has been passed to taxpayers in the main, and in that process many formerly charitable organisations have appreciably changed their focus, some radically.

    For example, a generation ago, the Crippled Children’s Society, now C.C.S. Disability Action, used many volunteers for many respectable purposes, including a very successful week-long door-to-door annual appeal collection. Some years ago, that collection was abandoned because of a lack of volunteers and many houses being empty when collectors called.

    Now, CCS Disability Action is largely funded by the taxpayer, and obtains its focus from two core documents, Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The foundation statement is in Reo Maori, and “means that all people have Mauri, unique life force” (quoting from their website).

    Of course, many former charitable organisations, such as orphanages and adoption agencies, have fallen by the wayside because abortion and/or the D.P.B. has largely removed their “clients”. More about abortion later.

    Domestic Purposes Benefit
    It needs little explication that the promiscuity consequent upon the contraceptive mentality has given rise to the solo mother phenomenon.

    In pre-feminist, pre-contraceptive mentality times, an unmarried young woman who found herself pregnant looked to her parents for support. Often the woman had been living away from her family home, and she returned there to raise her child until better circumstances might arise for her. In many other instances, the pregnant girl moved out of town to a facility, usually run by Catholic nuns, where she could live until her child was born and given up for adoption. Otherwise, she stayed with her parents until the child was born, and then the child was given up for adoption.

    Feminists are rabidly averse to young women being under the influence of their parents (vide the provision of abortion to schoolgirls without reference to their parents). So, in 1973, during a term of Labour Government, they were instrumental in bringing the Domestic Purposes Benefit into existence, another example of responsibility and rights being moved from parents to the Public Authority. (What was that that Humanae Vitae said about public authorities assuming management of sexual lifestyles ?)

    The D.P.B. has, of course, mushroomed, and now is a huge burden on taxpayers. And, of course, it has become for many young women a means to a grossly immoral lifestyle.

    This is the most heinous of the evils wrought by the contraceptive mentality.

    Discussion of the D.P.B. brings it up. Many good parliamentarians of the time (e.g., Sir Robert Muldoon) voted to approve the D.P.B., despite their realisation that it would encourage irresponsible sexual behaviour, because they feared that otherwise many young women would be pressured into having their in utero children killed by an abortionist.

    In the 1970s, having instituted the contraceptive mentality as a means for women to engage in recreational sex and flood the workplace, Women’s Liberation/Feminism was determined to let no stone stand in its path nor any obstacle impede its progress.

    Despite the free availability of contraception, many women, living in the sexually “liberated” spirit of the contraceptive mentality, still become pregnant in unwanted circumstances. Pregnancy is an obstacle to the aims of feminism; feminism and its contraceptive mentality regard pregnancy as “the enemy”. Accordingly, feminists agitated strenuously and with devilish craft for the decriminalisation of abortion. Although some restrictions still apply on paper, they have, in fact, achieved abortion on request.

    Furthermore, the “every woman in the workforce” contraceptive mentality enunciated by such feminists as Helen Clark, brings career expectations for those women fortunate enough not to be stuck in manual labour. Pregnancy tends to curtail workplace advancement expectations or hopes, so many career-minded women have their in utero children killed instead.

    Likewise, business owners have been bullied by pro-feminist legislators into making no discrimination against employing women of child-bearing age. Women take employment, and they and their spouses (real or de facto) become accustomed to living on two incomes; they upgrade their residential property, committing themselves to high long-term loan repayments. Many in utero children are killed every year because their mothers have become trapped in debt repayment commitments.

    The rise and, indeed, lionisation of homosexuality that we have witnessed over the last couple of decades is also a product of the contraceptive mentality, as has been publicly affirmed by Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, among others.

    Rowan Williams wrote an essay, “The Body’s Grace”, which he delivered as an address in 1989 to the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement. In that essay he argued that his Church’s acceptance of contraception meant it acknowledged the validity of non-procreative sex, and this gives the green light to homosexual “sex”.

    You’ll understand, then, why the Anglican communion, having given the thumbs up to contraception almost a century ago, is having difficulty denying ordination to practising homosexuals.

    Feminists and homosexuals are rather “natural” allies; many leading feminists are homosexual. It has suited feminism to support homosexualism.

    And so we’ve seen the devastation wrought by AIDS. We’ve seen the political manipulation of the medical authorities so that the normal response to an epidemic of a deadly infection – isolation of carriers – was put aside. Subsequently, we’ve witnessed the deliberate contagion of the heterosexual community (via prostitutes) so that it can be claimed that AIDS is not a homosexual problem.

    Instead of isolation of carriers and containment of this deadly virus, we’ve seen billions of dollars spent on treatments and research – billions of dollars that could’ve gone close to removing poverty in Africa.

    We’ve seen the decriminalisation of homosexual acts, despite Parliament being bombarded by the largest petition in the history of our country.

    Consequently, we’ve seen the establishment of the AIDS Foundation, funded almost entirely by taxpayers. Purportedly an organisation to provide support for homosexuals, and assist in the prevention of AIDS, the AIDS Foundation is actually an advocate for homosexual behaviour/lifestyle. Its representatives visit almost every high school throughout our country; it has produced HIV 101 for inclusion in the mandatory sex lessons (“health education”) taught in our schools (another product of the contraceptive mentality).

    Now the AIDS Foundation is worried about an outbreak of drug resistant gonorrhoea among Auckland homosexuals.

    Our Parliament has recently passed legislation for homosexual “marriage”, and next in the queue is homosexual adoptions.

    There is little doubt that that other devastating progression will eventuate. The contraceptive mentality delivers again.

    Pornography has become “main stream” entertainment, even on our television screens, and even N.Z.-made starring our much celebrated Lucy Lawless (see, e.g., “Spartacus”), public spokesman for the immorality of off-shore oil drilling.

    Pornography has gradually crept into “respectability” because universal contraception and, thus, casual sexual intimacy has become de rigueur à la feminism. Watching pornography is really only watching what our kids in our schools are being taught to do. What can be wrong with that ? After all, what have you done about that ?

    Watch this space for reports of pornography being used in school sex lessons.

    Can hardly ban it from our TV screens when it’s so normal, can we ? No, no, we should be enjoying it, indulging in it.

    Old Age Pension, Aged Care, Euthanasia
    Like homosexual “marriage” and homosexual adoption, there is considerable agitation for the decriminalisation of euthanasia, so-called voluntary euthanasia. And, like those homosexual progressions, euthanasia is most likely to be approved by our Parliament in due course.

    The contraceptive mentality so enthusiastically embraced by the “baby boomer” generation has meant that our country is now facing a fiscal crisis brought about by there being too few taxpayers to fund the needs of those retiring baby boomers.

    The baby boomers have failed to reproduce adequately.

    There is now considerable pressure being brought upon the Government to raise the age of eligibility for the Old Age Pension, so that this payment will be made to fewer recipients. That pressure is being brought to bear by the children of those baby boomers. Those children are not enthusiastic about being crippled by the taxation required to fund their parents’ pension in old age.

    And those children, sons and daughters, are all in the workforce, and unavailable to provide care for their elderly parents. But residential care is not cheap. Those children are not enthusiastic about forking out to pay for the care of their parents; nor are they enthusiastic about being taxed for the purpose.

    You might see how “voluntary” euthanasia could have some appeal.

    The contraceptive mentality again.

    Interestingly, on June 27th, 2012, Peter Davis, sociologist at Auckland University and childless husband of childless Helen Clark, wrote to the New Zealand Herald declaring “Our problem is not too many babies; it is too few…. We risk a major shortfall…in the future… We need more children, not fewer, and parents should be rewarded, not penalised, for their ‘service’…” He recognises that the contraceptive mentality has brought the absence of children needed to drive a dynamic economy.

    More from Peter Davis below.

    Women’s Liberation ?
    Has feminism and its contraceptive mentality “liberated” women ? Far from it.

    On the one hand, the only two surveys I’ve seen published have found the overwhelming majority of working mothers would rather be at home.

    On the other hand, the contraceptive pill has made women constantly “available” through removal of the prospect of pregnancy, and so men expect them to be always available – sex slaves, effectively. As well as that, the “equality” thrust of feminism has pushed for men to share responsibility for contraception. So vasectomies have become a medical industry.

    But when a husband has a vasectomy, the wife ceases taking the pill (or else he wants to know why). That makes her vulnerable to pregnancy again should she care to practise sexual “freedom”, but leaves him free to philander at will.

    Likewise, if the husband uses condoms, which has become another huge industry, he wants to know why the wife is using the contraceptive pill. Again he’s free to philander, and she’s vulnerable to pregnancy if she tries it.

    Oh dear, not quite what feminism promised women, is it ?

    Hmmm…what about the wonderful financial benefits that have accrued to women from feminism/contraceptive mentality ?
    The Sunday Star-Times of July 1st, 2012, displayed a front page report, “Price of Progress Hurts Kiwis” by Charles Anderson. Mr Anderson reported the comments of economists and others in regard to the parlous financial circumstances of modern N.Z. families – “…two-income families are increasingly worse off than single-income families were a generation ago…”

    And in 2006 the afore-mentioned Peter Davis released the report, “Families No Better Off”, which revealed that, despite feminism’s massive movement of women into the workforce, the average N.Z. family had enjoyed no financial benefit.

    What about the wonderful health benefits that have accrued to women ?

    Maternal and Neonatal Health and Abortion:
    40-Year Trends in Great Britain and Ireland
    Byron C. Calhoun, M.D., John M. Thorp, M.D., Patrick S. Carroll, M.A.

    Calhoun, Thorp and Carroll conclude:
    Over the 40 years of legalised abortion in the UK there has been a consistent pattern in which higher abortion rates have run parallel to higher incidence of stillbirths, premature births, low birth-weight neonates, cerebral palsy, and maternal deaths as sequelae [after-effects] of abortion. In contrast, both Irish jurisdictions [where abortion is illegal] consistently display lower rates of all morbidities and mortality associated with legalised abortion.

    Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Summer, 2013

    Apart from what we can see with our own eyes, there would seem to be ample evidence that the social disruption and destruction wrought by feminism and its contraceptive mentality have produced no benefit.

    And, might we consider how much our shortage of religious vocations is a result of small families.


  2. Apropos “Leo”‘s comment, just two observations: 1) When you describe a statement from a primate as being ‘infallible’, you give yourself away, and 2) If birth control is to be decried as being ‘against nature’, what are we to make of life long celibacy?

  3. I’ve just stumbled across this brilliant “comment” above by Leo. What he has written would make an excellent main article for the NZ Catholic. Any chance of contacting him via email and asking if it can be published?? God Bless, Gina