{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreifffxzr76xnzlys5rxm6ktp7lvch7g4qezki3varrjpmees53aixq",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:xmviqbn3a2rrkhizx4gf7g6t/app.bsky.feed.post/3me7gs4alomx2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreig37rzsubjzrasyt7qu4w3mioqebxf2ogrjoc2j2gd5pemxpa5qda"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
    "size": 56745
  },
  "path": "/2026/02/06/anti-christian-feminism-carrie-gress/",
  "publishedAt": "2026-02-06T06:00:00.000Z",
  "site": "https://juicyecumenism.com",
  "tags": [
    "feminism",
    "Theology of Home",
    "Something Wicked: Why Feminism Can’t Be Fused with Christianity",
    "banned",
    "Mary Wollstonecraft",
    "New Feminism",
    "Cluster B personality disorders",
    "Death of Radical Feminist Theology",
    "The Anti-Christian Core of Feminism",
    "Juicy Ecumenism"
  ],
  "textContent": "Carrie Gress, editor of the online journal _Theology of Home_ and a scholar with the Institute for Human Ecology at the Catholic University of America, spoke at the Catholic Information Center of January 21 on why feminism is a fundamentally anti-Christian movement, and discussed her new book, _Something Wicked: Why Feminism Can’t Be Fused with Christianity_. Publicity surrounding censorship of Gress’s earlier book _The Anti-Mary Exposed: Reclaiming the Culture from Toxic Feminism_ seems to have aided the book, which doubled sales after initially being banned by Facebook parent company Meta.\n\nGress sees feminism as an “anti-Marian” movement. But she said that this judgment is not exclusively directed at twentieth century or contemporary feminism, but at all feminism as we have known it in the Western world, starting with English writer and philosopher Mary Wollstonecraft, the mother of feminism.\n\nGress said that the Virgin Mary “is the most powerful woman in the world … No one has been photographed more” no one has had “the role and influence that she’s had” on the world. Feminism, she said, “is directly opposed to who our lady is.” It is “diametrically opposed” to Christianity.\n\n**Roots in the Late Eighteenth Century**\n\nAfter doing research on the anti-Christian aspects of second wave feminism (1960s-early 1980s), Gress then looked back at first wave feminism, which began in the late eighteenth century with Wollstonecraft. Gress then asked whether or not such a thing as “Christian feminism” is possible. She believes it is not possible. Feminism, she found, is concerned with “control and power,” whereas Christianity focuses on charity and humility.\n\nGress’s basic insight for the book is that “feminism has created a shadow church … it’s mimicking what’s happening in a Catholic church.” This makes it very hard for many women to leave feminism, since “it’s meeting so many of these emotional, spiritual, and practical needs.” She saw many of the same patterns of thought and practice recurring in both first wave and second wave feminism.\n\nShe asked, “what are the elements of the shadow church?” First, she said that a church needs an object of worship. For Christians, Christ is the object of worship. In feminism, it is autonomy. The feminist ideal for women is to be independent of men and children, and generally “live their lives independently of the family.” The early feminists indeed wanted “to help women in very bad situations.” Thus there was a natural sympathy for their cause. But their solution was not to convert abusers to Christ and a more righteous life, to make women “more like men.”\n\nFirst-wave feminism, she found, was greatly helped by the Industrial Revolution. This moved economic activities which had happened inside the home to outside the home. In this new culture, children went from being (economic) assets to being liabilities (that had to be taken care of). Women were being pushed into the work force. The wife’s responsibilities in managing children and her position in the home were “being washed away.”\n\nTo this situation, feminism seemed “an easy answer.” The early feminists were influenced by the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, the son-in-law of Wolstencraft and her husband, William Godwin (a bitter opponent of Christian sexual morality). Shelley held that women should be free, at least in terms of the real choices available to them, from men and from children, and full and equal participants in the world of work. The first wave included the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and involved the work of Margaret Sanger, and the appearance of leftist political movements (socialist or communist). Feminism, like these movements, had roots in the French Revolution. Additional features included the belief “that hierarchies were bad,” that organizational structures set up by men are “intrinsically and inherently bad,” and that men are “intrinsically bad.”\n\nShelley also encouraged the early feminists to be “deeply involved in the occult.” He spent a night in a coffin trying to contact the devil. Taking the lead of his father-in-law, William Godwin, Shelley held “that marriage is a kind of slavery.” Women “like everyone else” should be able to enjoy non-marital sex, which was “called at that time ‘free love’” with no moral restraints. Gress found his ideas similar to those of the Marquis de Sade, although not as cruel as de Sade.\n\n**The Commandments of the Feminist Church**\n\nFrom these origins, Gress found the “three commandments” that informed first wave and subsequent feminisms: 1) involvement in the occult, 2) promiscuity, and 3) contempt for men. This “trinity” characterizes many young women today committed to feminism but was created generations ago in the age of the American and French revolutions. She observed said that one can easily see from these commandments that feminism is incompatible with Christianity. “Contempt for men … makes it very difficult for a woman to have a relationship with God the Father. The occult makes it very difficult to have a relationship with Christ, and promiscuity of course makes it incredibly difficult for a woman … to be able to” be moved by the Holy Spirit.\n\nNot surprisingly, feminism is contrary to the Christian theological virtues (faith, hope, and love). Against these, feminism advances “rage, envy, and contempt.” These three hostile characteristics are “a fundamental way feminism has taken hold of the culture.” She said that “every kind of women’s march has got these characteristics to it.” But many people would be surprised to learn that this way of thinking comes from the 1800s. Socialists and communists realized then, she said, that their goals would be much easier to accomplish if women were angry than if they were happy. In this connection, they developed sessions of “consciousness raising,” in which women would talk about everything “that they were upset about and mad about.” Remarkably, consciousness raising moved from the United States to China, and from there back to the United States in the 1970s and 1980s. American women involved in consciousness raising at this time thought that it “was this exotic thing from China,” whereas it was simply a socialist tool that moved “from country to country.”\n\nThe next element in the “shadow church is the sacred rite of work.” This is important for women’s autonomy. This in turn leads to “the sacrament” of abortion. Instead of Christ saying, “this is my body for you” in the sacrament of communion, in the sacrament of abortion the individual says, “this is my body for me.” Moral autonomy, the sacredness of work, and the belief that women should “become like men” are the driving forces of abortion, she said. Feminism, not _Roe v. Wade_ , has fueled the abortion culture. She said that until women are educated that “they were made for much more than autonomy,” abortion will continue to be with us. One can also see that from the three feminist virtues – rage, envy, and contempt – there is no capacity for healing, only further rage.\n\nThe last element of the shadow church is evangelization. Feminism has its “built-in own style” of this. The method is that “broken women break other women.” They then “want to protect themselves from being wounded further.” Feminism, however, only has is “the capacity to continue to aggravate them.” There are no sacraments of forgiveness and love, as there are in the church. Another aspect of feminism as a quasi-religion is that criticism of feminism is taboo. Gress said that she herself has been denounced as a hypocrite for “benefitting from feminism” in her career. Alternatively, it will be claimed that feminism is “only about helping women,” and so attacking feminism is anti-woman. Today, however, it is perfectly socially acceptable to criticize the Catholic Church and its teachings, or any other Christian church.\n\nAnother harmful effect of feminism is its effect on men. Feminism has been above criticism for “a long time,” she said, and now the manosphere has exploded. At least part of the manosphere is as hostile to women and feminists are to men. This part of the conflict wrought by feminism has descended to the level of a “teen-age fight.”\n\n**Feminism and Christianity in Conflict**\n\nGress then addressed the feminism which was claimed by Pope John Paul II (his “New Feminism”). Research has shown he claimed to advance a feminism only three times in his pontificate. This, however, was not truly feminist in line with the tradition set up by Godwin and Wollstonecraft. His _Theology of the Body_ outlines a vision of female sexuality in line with the Bible and historic Christian teaching. John Paul placed women in a hierarchy headed by Christ.\n\nGress pointed to the enormous amount of data on women, mothers, and early childhood. Many are linking “Cluster B personality disorders” (dramatic, erratic personalities) to inadequate mothering and childcare. This data is supporting the traditional identity of women as mothers. She then discussed models of what women should be, highlighting both the Virgin Mary and the church, which is also a mother.\n\nGress said that the goal of feminism, including first-wave feminism, has always been to destroy the church, destroy the Christian faith, and destroy the family. Many first-generation feminists were unitarians or atheists, Gress observed (e.g. Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony). She noted that among these was Matilda Gage, who was a witch. She influenced her daughter and son-in-law, Frank Baum, to become involved in witchcraft. After her death, he wrote, _The Wonderful Wizard of Oz_ , (later _The Wizard of Oz_). Gress believes that the wizard character is representative of patriarchy. Real power in the story, however, rests with the female witches, and with the stranded Dorothy, if only she knows to use the powers within her. In contrast, the church, as a mother, heals and shelters, doing “all these things that women are really meant to do. But she’s also the bride of Christ. Christ is the masculine. He’s the head of every hierarchy, every patriarchy.” His bride is a beautiful woman, the church, who also gives life.\n\n**Questions about Feminism**\n\nA questioner said that if John Paul II’s claimed feminism is not real feminism, what term should be used for a correct doctrine of woman. Gress said that it’s important to understand that Christians and humanity in general lived for millennia without feminism, or any Christian alternative to it. She said the questioner simply wants a correct understanding of how a woman can fulfill her full God-given potential. But feminism is not “at all” about this.  It is about autonomy, including autonomy from God. As far as feminism goes, really “we don’t need it.” The core of feminism is that we need “godless egalitarianism,” “men are contemptable,” and “women need to be helped along because we’re always victims.” The attempt at “Catholic feminism” has only sown confusion among women, priests, husbands, and the general population.\n\nIn response to another question, she observed that Wollstonecraft was the first revolutionary woman. Wollstonecraft justified the blood spilt during the French Revolution as necessary to expunge Catholicism from France. This shows that it’s important to see where movements such as feminism go when they come to fruition.\n\nAnother questioner observed that “the principal achievement” of first-wave feminism was women’s suffrage, and then asked what should we think of women’s suffrage? Gress said that many people do not realize that women’s suffrage might have been achieved earlier, but for the internal divisions among the feminists of that day. She said she had “no strong feelings” about women’s suffrage, and that the feminist campaign for it was “a symptom and not a source” of feminism and its problems.\n\nAfter observing the enormous changes in the world we live in during recent generations, it was asked whether or not the question “what is a woman?” would exist even if there was no feminism. Gress said that no, the question “what is a woman?” would not be asked without feminism. Many women see themselves as secular workers, rather than mothers. But young women and girls today do need to be “re-taught” what a woman is, according to Christian doctrine and biology.\n\n**More from IRD** :\n\nDeath of Radical Feminist Theology\n\nFeminism: Incompatible with Trinitarian Thought?\n\nThe post The Anti-Christian Core of Feminism appeared first on Juicy Ecumenism.",
  "title": "The Anti-Christian Core of Feminism"
}