Defenders Describe Attack on Argentine Cathedral as “Satanic, Part of an Anti-Christian World Revolution”

YouTube Preview Image

I thought when I began work on this post that I would have a lot to say. But the more I read, the less I understood.

My first thought was that the nudity of some of the women protesters might link the riot in the video above to the activities of Fenem in Europe. That may be true, but I can’t find anything that says one way or the other.

Fenem is a small group of young women who began their activities in the Ukraine and have since moved to Paris. They show up nude from the waist up at various public events, and are known for doing outlandish things such as tossing water in an Archbishop’s face and urinating on photos of the Ukrainian president.

I’ve looked at their website and their Facebook page and I can’t find anything that explains what they are doing. If they have a manifesto or a philosophy or even a set of demands, I can’t find them. On the other hand, I did find a listing of things they oppose on Wikipedia, and I have to admit, I agree with them about some of these things.

According to Wikipedia, Fenem began in the Ukraine under the leadership of Anna Hutsol. The group opposes legalizing prostitution, sex tourism and human trafficking. These are all things where I agree with them.

Fenem is also evidently pro abortion and strongly in favor of gay rights, although I am not sure what particular form this support of gay rights takes.

I don’t have any idea what the point of stripping to the waist and tossing water in people’s faces is about. I do get the message in urinating on the president of the Ukraine’s photo. I’m just think there are better, more effective and less vulgar ways to make the statement.

Does Fenem have any connection to the riot in the video at the top of this post? I don’t know.

I haven’t had much luck finding press coverage of the incident recorded in the video. According to the articles I did find, the rioters gathered for the National Meeting of Women in San Juan de Cuyo, Argentina. Evidently, this group has a history of these kinds of “excesses” which have been documented in other videos.

Prior to the attack on the Cathedral, the rioters marched through the city, painting anti-Catholic slogans such as “burn the churches” or “set fire to the churches” on signs and homes. They then moved to attack the Cathedral of San Juan Bautista, which, based on the things they were painting on signs and buildings, they probably intended to burn.

Some of the female rioters stripped to the waist, but the rioters were not just women. It also wasn’t a feminist demonstration, at least not as I would think of it. While Fenem does at least talk about legitimate feminist concerns such as human trafficking, sex tourism and prostitution, this group of about 1500 men and women seems to have been focused almost entirely on attacking the Church. The only issues raised that I read anything about were homosexuality, gay marriage and abortion.

However the real issue appears to have been the Church itself.

After tormenting and degrading what appear to be mostly young men who formed a human chain to protect their church, the rioters burned Pope Francis in effigy, dancing around it while it burned. Local law enforcement refused to protect the Cathedral or interfere with the vandalism.

I can hear the young men on the video, praying the Rosary while they are being attacked. I think we owe these young men a great debt. I am proud of their courageous and non-violent defense of my faith. We should be grateful to them.

I imagine they will have bad dreams about this for long time. Many of them described the experience afterwards as a “satanic attack, with demonic figures” and as “part of an anti-Christian world revolution.”

“I think that this goes beyond religious discrimination,” Bishop Juan Martinez of Posadas said. “If this had been done to a synagogue, everyone would have condemned it as anti-Semitism. They do this against Catholics and many people look the other way.”

This is a new kind of movement, in that it does not appear to have any real purpose or plan. I saw spiritually sick people in that video. It was disturbing on many levels to watch it.

I think the world needs Christ and that, whatever else we eventually decide about all this, our call to evangelize is appallingly clear.

Sources: Wikipedia, Catholic News Agency, TFP Student Action, Protect the Pope, Women of Grace

 

 

  • SisterCynthia

    In some ways, it reminds me of the wild stuff you get in the Pacific Northwest, where I am from, during protests/parades/marches by anarchists, gay rights folks, occupy zealots, and (before they legalized it) pro-cannabis nutcakes, where hordes of them will smash, paint, assault and generally make an expensive, embarrassing nuisance of themselves (some of us suspect they are often the same rabblerousers, just showing up to destroy stuff under whatever banner is currently flying). But our local police have gotten used to limiting the carnage and I’ve not seen a church targeted on this scale. It seems more like people filled with hate attacking in a demonically self-escalating frenzy than an organized movement with any real goal to the act.
    As for the men, I think their example may have been what got to me the most. When I looked at those brothers faces, I didn’t see strangers, I could see in them the men I’ve gone to church with, men with fears and insecurities and families to go home to, who’ve given time to their communities and, while not perfect, truly seek to live for Christ. To watch such men take that kind of abuse out of no fault of their own, and on behalf of their Cathedral, was horrific, saddening, and inspiring. I can’t even seem to work up anger, it just makes me sad, and has prompted me to pray for the men, and the salvation of these ones who are so militantly lost. :(

    • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

      What a wonderful comment Cynthia.

    • Bill S

      What these women did is reprehensible. But you really need to get to the root cause of their anger. What is it that is making so many women so angry? Those who say it is Satanic I just got skirting the issue. Countries that deny basic human rights, such as access to abortion, same sex marriage, etc. are going to have these types of protests in greater frequency as time goes on.

      • hamiltonr

        Same sex marriage is legal in Argentina Bill. As for what makes these women so angry and that being something we need to look at, I ain’t buying it. When people behave like this, that’s just co-dependent claptrap. It’s like asking why do they hate us about 3,000 dead Americans after 9-11. It’s like the Jews asking what have we done to upset them so after Kristallnacht. It’s like telling women to ask what they’ve done to make their husbands so angry when the husbands beat them up. It’s like blaming rape victims by saying their dress as too sexy.

        It’s claptrap.

        • Bill S

          Well, even if it is because the Church in Argentina is influencing the government to not legalize abortion, or whatever the Church is doing to draw this kind of reaction, they are angry about something. It would be in everyone’s best interests to identify it and see what can be done to address it. You can’t just write them off as lunatics or demon possessed. That will just make things worse.

      • SisterCynthia

        Bill,
        I think perhaps you misunderstand why I used the descriptor satanic (I can’t guarantee how others meant it, so I’ll speak for myself). I could have meant it to describe their agenda, to impose murder and greater perversion upon their society and to heap abuse on Christ’s people for daring to say those things are wrong. Such an agenda I do believe IS satanic, whether that agenda is dressed up in a three piece suit and expounded by Important People, or running naked and catterwauling like these women, whether in America or Argentina, for the goal remains evil and opposed to the ways of Christ (thus, satanic). However, in this case, when I called it satanic I did so mostly because of the spirit I saw operating in their malice, their rage, their vulgarity, their desire to destroy, and their hate of Christ and His people. Most likely, that is the same reason others here have used that term as well. For those of us who believe Holy Scripture, and the teachings of the Church over the past 2,000 years, we believe this physical realm is only part of reality, that the noncorporeal spiritual realm inhabited by God, angels and demons overlaps our world and acts upon it and those who will allow themselves to be moved by it, for good or bad. I am NOT saying those there were possessed by satan (for one, he is finite, not God, and cannot be more than one place at one time) or even a flock of his demons, merely that they are responding to the whisperings of those entities who most hate God’s children, and choosing to “run with it” themselves out of their own dark impulses.
        It is not a cop-out to look at a group’s behavior as a clue to the spiritual bent of that group. It would be incomplete to not factor in what they claim to want. In this case, both their wants and actions speak of death, hate, and godlessness. Which makes it satanic on both fronts.

        • Bill S

          we believe this physical realm is only part of reality, that the noncorporeal spiritual realm inhabited by God, angels and demons overlaps our world and acts upon it and those who will allow themselves to be moved by it, for good or bad.

          OK. That is what you believe. And it could be said that I don’t belong on this blog if I don’t. I hesitate to say it with such surety, but a lot of people don’t want to hear about things like gods, angels and demons. To them, they simply don’t exist. Some people have legitimate reasons to hate Christians in general and the Catholic Church in particular. It has nothing to do with Satan (who to me is the fictional character in the Book of Job, which was probably written before any other book of the Bible). Among them are LGBTQs and pro-choicers. The Catholic Church seems to demonize its strongest critics.

      • Gail Finke

        Oh really. Because countries have never had these things until recently. Where was this supposed outrage over “denying basic human rights”?

        • Bill S

          People are always looking to acquire more. That includes more freedom. The love of freedom is not a bad thing. In this case, they are looking for the freedom to control what goes on in their own bodies. YeRs ago there were other forms of oppression that had to be addressed. Now the oppression is Catholic morality being imposed on people who are not practicing the faith.

  • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

    I have a suspicion that there is a conspiracy of silence of a sort on the Spanish-language press. I tried to google this and all I got was a site that set out a series of policy achievement more or less connected with these women’s meetings, but saying nothing about any street demonstration or the like. And the thing is, it seems to have taken place at least a week ago, so it took a long time to get out.

    • hamiltonr

      I think you may be right.

  • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

    Incidentally and just for the record, I disagree with you about legalizing prostitution.

    • hamiltonr

      I’ll write about that at some point and we can hash it out Fabio. :-)

      • Sus_1

        I will read a debate on legalizing prostitution with great interest. Can’t wait!

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        I’ll be interested in your thoughts too, but I’m with Fabio, I do not support legalized prostitution.

        • hamiltonr

          Did I say I supported legalized prostitution? If I did, I got it backwards. I oppose it. Absolutely and completely.

          • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

            Oh I don’t know if you did. Fabio seems to think you did.

            • hamiltonr

              I’ll re-read it and see if I said what I meant or goofed it up. :-)

              • hamiltonr

                Here’s what I said: According to Wikipedia, Fenem began in the Ukraine under the leadership of Anna Hutsol. The group opposes legalizing prostitution, sex tourism and human trafficking. These are all things where I agree with them.

                FWIW, I thought Fabio wanted to legalize prostitution.

                I guess we just sailed right past one another.

                • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

                  Oh, maybe I misinterpreted Fabio.

                  • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

                    As a matter of fact, you did. I said that I disagreed with Rebecca, who believes in making prostitution illegal. Hence, I do not believe in making it illegal.

                    • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

                      Ok. My mistake.

  • Sus_1

    Their message gets lost because of the vulgarity. Another case of their “side” would probably be happier if they were on the opposing side.

    No one that I know who is in favor of same sex marriage would approve of these tactics. It really is disgusting.

    • hamiltonr

      Same sex marriage has been legal in Argentina since July, 2010.

      • Almario Javier

        Though abortion, fortunately, is not. Which are why these idios are protesting, because even their social liberal government won’t endorse such barbarism.

        As to why the police won’t intervene, well, a lot of these are endorsed by university faculties apparently, and police qcting against them would bring comparisons to the last time they acted forcefully, which was when the military junta (the same one targeting the Holy Father’s friends) brutally broke up a pro democracy demonstration by force. Police intervention in these cases is sort of a tahoo from what I gather.

    • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

      My understanding is that the vulgarity was originally a means of insuring that the message gets out past media indifference to their political concerns — topless women being something that makes more news, and that European tabloids are happy to have an excuse to print the photos of. In some cases, the nudity is itself a simple attention mechanism; in others, however, they also paint slogans on their chests, thus increasing the media dissemination of those slogans when the photos get published, and in turn public awareness of the message.

      I’ve also seen it suggested that part of the motive is to shift away from the cultural construct of interpreting nudity as “vulgar” and “disgusting”.

      • FW Ken

        So what was meant by spray-painting the crotches of the young men. And spitting on them?

        • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

          Hardly clear. My first guess is that having found their message spread more effectively by violating one social norm, they are progressing to violation of other social norms — dumb cultural variation by imperfect imitation. To me, it seems less well focused; I expect this variant practice will diminish in so far as it’s indeed less effective.

          On the other hand, it may be primarily intended as signal that the degree of social status accorded to religion and to men is greater than their actual prestige justifies. Nohow, the notions of “status”, “actual prestige”, and “justifies” hide several complex cans of worms in that notion, and (from previous discussion) I doubt you’d accept the underlying premises for what I mean by those.

          • FW Ken

            Yes, violence against people who don’t deserve their social status certain gets a message across.

            • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

              The tactic often does have long term drawbacks. That doesn’t preclude the possibility it may be effective. Take, for example, the violence against the British Governors and Redcoats in the colonies circa the 1770s, by colonials who felt that the nominal “rulers” had exceeded the authority of that (and any) social position, and thus no longer deserved to be in such position….

              • FW Ken

                Except, of course, that “social position” was not the issue. The American revolutionaries were fighting for their homeland and used standard methods of warfare to do so. They were also reacting to enormities of the British military.

                For my part, your arguments remind me of another American group that, for many years, took care that another group of Americans knew their place. Step above your social position and a cross would be found burning on your lawn or the man of the house lynched. For more substantial and long-term solutions, events such as occurred in Rosemont and Tulsa did the trick.

                Of course, civilized people don’t approve of spitting on others or spray painting their crotches.

                • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

                  While social position may or may not be the core issue, it seems to matter for evaluating the significance of the actions. The same action can have different contextual significance when exercised by Top Dogs rather than Underdogs, much as I suggested in another comment.

                  Incidentally, characterizing the colonials as using “standard methods of warfare” may overstate matters, from what I recollect from my ancient high school US history class; particularly at the outset, with incidents like the Boston Tea Party. Similarly, so far as “enormities of the British military” justify some of those irregular military tactics, and in so far as war and politics are merely gradations on a continuous spectrum as Clausewitz and Zhou Enlai observed, the enormity of the Catholic Church as a political institution correspondingly justifies irregular political tactics. However, such discussion seems a bit of a pointless detour; war, howsoever justified, always seems to signal that one group thinks another is not in the “proper” social place, thus supporting my thesis.

                  • FW Ken

                    The core issue is barbaric and criminal behavior. I deal with criminals all day, and “justifying”is what we call a “criminal thinking error”.

                    • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

                      Your core issue is that the behavior deontologically prescribed as “barbaric” and “criminal” — in more general sociological terms, “proscribed under societal norms”. They, however, clearly do not accept the basis of authority for such deontology giving an absolute proscription — which may reflect that their “core issue” is instead consequentialist favoring of social change toward their goals.

                      You might find (doi:10.1300/J158v05n02_03) an interesting read, if you can obtain access to a full copy of the journal article: Furthermore, although “rigid” thinking has been identified as a criminal thinking error, such rigid thinking among many practitioners, that criminal thinking errors are the primary cause of crime, displays that same thinking error. Correlation is not causation; and “justifying” does not seem limited to criminals. Rather, it appears to be a subset of what the wider psychological literature refers to as “motivated reasoning”, which due to confirmation bias tends to be more error prone than more exploratory reasoning types. As such, your categorizing it as “criminal thinking” to fall in several of the less “sound” categories for persuasion resistance tactics.

                      Nohow, the phrase serves as an entry key at Google scholar to another interesting corner of the psychology literature; thanks.

                    • FW Ken

                      Criminals never do accept societal norms.

                      Now, as Rebecca notes, you are going in circles, so I’m done. You can’t follow an argument (e.g., I didn’t say criminal thinking errors cause crime), and are only the verge is speaking jibberish, as usual. Here’s hoping you have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

                    • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

                      I agree, I’m clearly not following your argument; however, I’m unconvinced this is from fault of mine. Merely asserting “the core issue is” does not spell out the consequent chain of argument. Thus, I’m having to infer what you’re not spelling out, based on guesses on the past sorts of argument, because there does not appear to have been a sequence of statements that can be reordered into a syllogistic argument.

                      I also suspect that you are not being careful in demarcating between “is” premises and “ought” premises, which contributes to the problem; and that because I am, I am questioning some of your premises in ways you find difficult to grasp — because the premise seems so basic.

                      In particular, are you referring to societal “norms” in the statistical descriptive sense, or the moral prescriptive sense? Merely that society expresses the norm does not mean the person ought follow it.

                      But if this is wrapping up, Happy Holidays to you too.

                  • Gail Finke

                    Did you watch the video? These women were simulating orgasm, oral sex, and masturbation. Among other things. There really can’t be a political reason for that. My guess is that it’s become an annual day to go wild and be bad.

                    • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

                      I may have a higher disgust threshold than you.

                      Politics can be considered the intersection of engineering and sociology — where people interact to determine the shape that they in aggregate think that society OUGHT to be. People who observer a behavior often tend to be influenced to increased normative acceptance of it and other related behaviors. If one has an objective of increased tolerance for public expressions of sexuality, and decreased acceptance of the authority of the Church in sexual morality, such behavior shifts the “Overton window”.

                      This appears to give existence proof of how there can be a political reason; it merely requires different political goals from yours or mine, and the optimism to neglect potential backfire effects.

                    • hamiltonr

                      You’re going in circles and repeating your abb3w.

                    • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

                      Yeah, because my points don’t seem to be being responded to, neither with acceptance nor rebuttal; so, I try rephrasing them to get the point across in a different manner. Continued failure of variant messages would seem to suggest the failure point is incapacity at source or destination.

                    • hamiltonr

                      Or … maybe you need to say it more simply. Just a thought.

      • Sus_1

        The nudity isn’t what I was referring to as vulgar and disgusting. What is vulgar and disgusting is trying humiliate other people by spitting and spray painting their clothes covered genitals.

        I can’t even begin to imagine the reaction if these were young men spitting and spray painting crotches of women.

        • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

          Ah; that wasn’t clear from the original post.

          While the reaction would be epic were the genders reversed, this is in part because of the difference in the cultural roles of men and women. While I’ve not talked with any Argentines for almost a decade, my understanding was that there remained greater inequities in gender roles than the US (which is improving, but still seems to have room for more). Or, less pedantically: even more than the US, women are the underdogs. As such, such gender reversal would significantly shift the implications; rather than being one of refusing to accept the existing inequities as too large, it would send one signalling that the existing inequities are too small.

          • Sus_1

            I don’t see how spitting and defacing someone’s body will further any agenda. No matter how important that agenda is.

            • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

              If (a big IF) detriment from whatever backlash from violation of social norms is outweighed by the advantage of wider exposure of their ideas (including indirect, such from people going “who are these nuts”, and looking at Wikipedia), then it would further the agenda.

              Whether or not that is the case seems doubtful; but I at least see how it could further the agenda.

  • Dale

    These sort of attacks against Argentine cathedrals, and the courageous non-violent defense by Catholics, have been occurring for several years. I remember discussing a similar incident a few years ago, and it wasn’t the first such incident. The female protesters baring their breasts seems a standard tactic when such protests occur. As with Fenem, the intent is to shock and discomfort their targets (who are culturally conservative, and would object to female nudity.)

    A similar incident occurred during the run-up to World Youth Day in Madrid, when many Spanish universities saw anti-Catholic vandalism or protests. At the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, protesters invaded the Catholic chapel during Mass, bringing it to a halt. In addition to all of the shouting and commotion, some of the female students surrounded the altar and stripped to the waist.

    That this tactic is used by different groups in different countries suggests that there is some reasoning which is shared by such protesters. I don’t think it means there is organized cooperation so much as a cross-fertilization of ideas.

  • AnneG

    The organization is called Encuentro Nacional de Mujer. Apparently they’ve been having these meetings for 28 years and recently in San Juan De Cuyo. They got a bunch of endorsement letters from the University faculties there. It looks to be independent from what I’ve gathered, though they do read and copy from other groups. They site an Argentine woman from the ’20′s as their inspiration. I found the program, opening address and list of workshops. Haven’t read the whole speech, yet as it’s the usual blah blah from stuff like that. I also found a local newspaper article about it.

    • hamiltonr

      That’s a lot of information Anne. Thanks for sharing it.

  • la Catholic state

    They can only do their cause harm. Most secularists will throw up at the sight of these women and their antics, and many will come to believe that they have seen the Devil when they have seen this.
    One of the ugliest thing about these women….is their complete lack of concern for children.

    • Dave

      Of course they have a complete lack of concern for children. They are fighting for their rights to kill their OWN children. Why would they care about somebody else’s?

      • la Catholic state

        Sure….but they neither care for unborn or born children.

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    They weren’t just throwing water. They were spitting on the young men. I don’t know if you missed that. I don’t know why right wing extremists get the reputation they do from the media, but left wing extremists are so much worse. It has been my experience that left wing extremism is violent and degrading. Everyone pictures Martin Luther King and peaceful protests. But that is not the usually methodoly from left wingerws, expecially Marxists. This was disgusting. You can’t dialogue with people like this.

    • hamiltonr

      I saw it.

    • FW Ken

      Manny, pro-life people have reported these things for years. Now we are getting it on video.

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        You mean in the hispanic countries? I was never aware.

        • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

          One thing that people don’t appreciate when they speak of hispanic countries as havens of CAtholic faith, is that both in Spain itself and in its former colonies (with the possible exception of the Philipines, where I never heard of such things) there is a long and indeed hallowed tradition of incredibly virulent anti-clericalism, and several states, including Mexico, have openly anti-Catholic provisions in their constitutions and legal systems. This has a number of roots. On the left, it has to do with what is unfortunately the reflex reactionary attitude of most Spanish-language churches, which have historically tended to support the most petrified feudal social attitudes. There is also the fact that the Church is extrardinarily poorly rooted. A few years ago, the Vatican released some horrifying statistics. In all other continents, with no significant difference between missionary areas such as most of Asia and Christian and Catholic-majority countries, the Church had one ordained priest for between 2000 and 2200 baptized Catholics; in Latin America, and nowhere else, it was one to 7800. Many Hispanics may well never have experienced parish life as a daily reality. Some Churches tried to react to these problems by encouraging liberation theology in an attempt to reach the poor, but unfortunately this was just as much an elite attitude as what it opposed, and missed the point altogether. What the poor want from the Church is not, primarily, advocacy and political leadership; they know where to find politicians for that. They want the kinds of things that a good parish does naturally – social contact, moral support and advice, services for children, low-level charity, confession, even sports. That is why protestant denominations are sweeping Latin America (they are nearly the majority in Brazil): their preachers do exactly these things, leaving the high politics to politicians.

          But if this is the problem with the Church from what we might call the left, the right – the financial, military and business leadership of the various hispanic societies – also has plenty of reasons, as they conceive, to hate her. In recent years, liberation theology has displeased them greatly. Traditionally there is a strong feeling that Progress – that idol of the Latin and Romance ruling classes – and CAtholicity are not compatible. Santa Ana already used the “Catholic backwardness” of his Mexican people to justify his defection from liberalism to the ugliest tyranny. In Spain there is also anger that the Church favoured the dissolution of the Spanish Empire and was among the first to recognize the independent Spanish American republics. And so on. You really have to say that whatever the Church does, it does wrong, and that hitting it with a stick is almost a reflexive action in both left and right wing Hispanic circles.

          In other words, these ugly maniacs are not seen as ugly maniacs in the Spanish cultures; at the very least, not as ROOTLESS ugly maniacs. Echoing a controversy that took place in the Italian Communist Party decades ago, when Communist terrorist suddenly appeared and started to kill, they are not yet “lost comrades” but at best “mistaken comrades”. To humiliate and degrade Catholics is not necessarily, in the view of the educated progressive Spanish speaker, a bad goal, because everything wrong and everything that needs to be destroyed in their own society before it becomes “progressive” and “modern” is summed up in the Catholic Church. Of course, this whole attitude is itself pathological, but what can anyone do with whole social strata seized by mental pathologies?

          • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

            Thanks Fabio.

        • FW Ken

          No, I meant in the U.S., although verbal assaults. I’m not aware of this sort of physical attack.

    • FW Ken

      Hatered of persons is never justified.

  • guber

    These were feminist rioters, man haters. It should call you to wake up. There is a huge leftist-feminist subversion going on throughout the world. It is in control of governments in the US, Latin America, India (big time) and all over Europe, Sweden is the worst, France follows up close, and it doesn’t stop in Germany. The UN bureaucrats and the WHO as well as NGOs, Rockefeller Foundation that’s funding it. They are spreading lies about “female oppression”, “patriarchy”, “misogyny”, “violence against women”, etc. and their actions have brought forth disruptive legal abomination in all these countries which are destroying healthy society and above all the families.

    What you see here is just the logical result of what feminists are preaching. And this stuff has undermined the Church, definitely the protestant denominations, and now dips into Catholicism too. We need a movement and a global wake-up to turn this dangerous development around. The time to act is now, learn to detect its subtle subversive influence and stop this ideology.

  • voxon123

    Where are the preachers… speaking out against this nonsense from their pulpits and rallying their people to take a stand for Jesus? We are lacking real leadership among our clergy. They have been trained in classrooms, study in small classrooms, and preach inside classroom type buildings…. churches Trying to get these people outside of four walls to evangelize and address the needs of people is very difficult. Certainly Jesus went unto the people. Pray that our ministers will experience revival!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X