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.
Gress 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.
Gress 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.
Roots in the Late Eighteenth Century
After 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.
Gress’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.
She 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.”
First-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.”
To 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.”
Shelley 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.
The Commandments of the Feminist Church
From 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.
Not 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.”
The 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.
The 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.
Another 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 as feminists are to men. This part of the conflict wrought by feminism has descended to the level of a “teen-age fight.”
Feminism and Christianity in Conflict
Gress 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.
Gress 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.
Gress 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.
Questions about Feminism
A 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.
In 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.
Another 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.
After 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.
More from IRD:
Death of Radical Feminist Theology
Feminism: Incompatible with Trinitarian Thought?
Comment by Dan W on February 6, 2026 at 7:03 am
– Gress said that the Virgin Mary “is the most powerful woman in the world … No one has been photographed more” – What is meant by this?
Comment by Jeffrey Walton on February 6, 2026 at 11:23 am
As a traditionalist Roman Catholic, possibly she references photography of Marian apparitions. The Roman Catholic Church cautiously authenticates about two dozen Marian apparitions (some of them, like Guadalupe, pre-date photography), so I would personally greet this statement about being the most-photographed with incredulity. That said, I would readily concede Gress’ wider point about Mary capturing the imagination of the Church, and she has certainly inspired religious art more than any other woman.
Comment by Salvatore Anthony Luiso on February 6, 2026 at 2:13 pm
Regarding “Feminism, she found, is concerned with ‘control and power,’ whereas Christianity focuses on charity and humility”: If to be concerned about “control and power” is anti-Christian, then there are many Christians in American–including Catholics and evangelicals who are anti-feminist–who are anti-Christian.
This is not to say that she’s wrong: just those who believe she’s right should be consistent in how they judge whether ideologies and people are anti-Christian.
They shouldn’t think: “When THEY are focused on control and power, they are anti-Christian, but when WE are focused on control and power, we are not”.
Comment by Wilson R. on February 6, 2026 at 4:00 pm
Honestly, this is about the biggest pile of nonsense I have ever seen on this site.
“The core of feminism” is not “godless egalitarianism,” “men are contemptable (sic),” and “women need to be helped along because we’re always victims.”
It is simply empowering women to claim a status equal of that to men in the workforce and in society. Equal pay for equal work. End of the glass ceiling. Validation for women who choose to pursue careers instead of families, who choose to pursue career AS WELL AS families, and who choose to raise families and not enter the workforce.
While some feminists are undoubtedly opposed to Christianity (whether because they’re secularists or simply out of anger at how the Church so often has treated women), there is nothing intrinsic to feminism that is anti-Christian. In fact, one could argue persuasively that feminism, as I have defined it above, actually aligns with Paul’s insistence that there can be no distinctions within the body of Christ between male and female. I submit that the twisted Catholicism of the woman featured in this piece is far more anti-Christian than the average feminist who simply wants to be treated as a social and economic equal to men.
Comment by Mark on February 6, 2026 at 5:30 pm
It’s impossible to take anti-feminists serious when they can’t resist the urge to argue with strawwomen rather than really engage the heart of the matter. Gress can’t help but create the same tired caricatures of feminists as bitter, lonely man-hatters or neo-pagan witches running naked through the forest. We’ve heard stories of these monsters before, but they’re never the feminists any of us (including Gress herself most likely) meet in the real world. Let’s quietly ignore the fact that the majority of self-identified feminists both throughout history and in the present have been married, many with children. Let’s quietly ignore the fact that a great number of them attend church, even though Gress has already declared feminism to be incapable with Christianity and assumes ulterior motives without evidence for the thousands of self-identified feminists who sit the pews on Sunday. The hippies, Wiccas, and militant atheists Gress points to have always been the exceptions, not the norms. Let’s quietly ignore the fact that modern society’s emphasis on autonomy and individualism as moral virtues isn’t unique to women at all, nor does it trace its origins back to feminism. Rather this is a fruit of free-market capitalism and classical liberalism going back to periods prior to 1st Wave Feminism. If anything feminism as Gress tries to trace it back the 19th Century began as a offshoot of a larger classically liberal ethos that had already taken men’s society by-storm. It was translating what liberation for women looked like in a society in which such liberation had been already realized (at in some instances) by men. Why do the same anti-feminists who attack the notion of autonomy in women still tend to treat as a virtue in men? This is where the defenders of patriarchy try have their cake and eat it too, subtly code-switching between preaching submission within a hierarchy as a universal human virtue on one hand, while simultaneously trying to point at something virtuous and romantic in male (but not female) ambition and rebellion.
Which brings me to my next point. Protestants beware. Gress proudly wears her traditionalist Catholicism on her sleeve, and there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that, except it’s impossible to separate her arguments against feminism from her narrow sectarian dogma. The first clue was her opening with the Virgin Mary, who while still a very revered women in Protestant churches, holds a much more lofty position in Catholicism that many outside that tradition are uncomfortable with. Her statements on Mary and attempt to use her as an anti-feminist wrecking ball would be met with confused looks at best in Protestant congregations and charges of “popery” at worst. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
What really should concern Protestants is her appeals to hierarchy and the centrality of it within her whole book. Conservative Protestants aren’t exactly allergic to hierarchy, but they define and emphasize it very narrowly (most of the time at least). For them the type of hierarchy Gress talks about, which is spiritual in nature, exists primarily in the home. Most likely she is aware of this and knows this is her way inside. Their model of hierarchy is simple: Father knows best, mother submits to father, children submit to both parents, and all of them submit to God. There is little talk of this hierarchy beyond the threshold of the home. Yes, hierarchies exist in other places such as work and the state, but for most Christians living in the Western Hemisphere these hierarchies are seen as purely materialistic rather than spiritual. Employees don’t follow their bosses because they believe they has been appointed by God or out of some feudal obligation. Rather their employment is a condition of a contract between employer and employee which either party can break at anytime. Likewise political hierarchies are seen in reverse in which power comes from below rather than above with the people electing leaders to represent them and holding them accountable.
To be fair most modern-day Catholics seem to have also limited the sphere of spiritual hierarchy primarily to the home and the Church itself. But there is a very vocal minority known as integalists who believe this type of hierarchy should exist in all spheres. They argue that serfs were happier and better off than contemporary workers – in the same way Gress might argue pre-feminist women were happier and better off. They see liberal government with its egalitarianism, checks and balances, and emphasis on individual rights as wicked and incapable with true Christianity – again applying most of the same arguments as Gress to make their case. Do I think Gress is an integalist? Perhaps not, or at least not intentionally, but she does provide integalists with a handy roadmap to carry her attacks beyond the realm of women’s roles to the next arena. Her stated indifference to the question of suffrage should at least give us pause because while it indicates she hasn’t set out to pursue a wider political agenda here, she also tells us she hasn’t considered the potential of her work to be for such a purpose. This ironic since most of her ad hominem attacks against thinkers like Wollstonecraft rest not on bad intentions, but unintended consequences. The same logic that would allow her jump six spaces ahead from Wollenecraft’s advocacy for women’s education to the Roe v. Wade, would make her answerable for attacks on democracy, human rights, and separation of church and state.
Comment by Thomas on February 7, 2026 at 10:18 am
I disagree with many of this women`s conclusion. They are related to her Traditionalist Catholic views. While feminism with time become un-Christian or anti-Christian this happened mostly in the 20th century because of Marxist influence. Feminism in the past was supported by many committed Christians. Many feminists in the past were also strongly anti-abortion, even those who weren`t Christians, like Mary Wollstonecraft, because they saw abortion as being against women`s nature and dignity and believed the unborn also had rights.
Comment by Cal on February 12, 2026 at 9:08 am
I’m no leftist, but to be honest there are different versions of feminism, not all of which match the description offered by the author, who no doubt picked the most extreme version to bolster her point.
By any chance was this woman a one-time feminist who became disillusioned and flipped to anti-feminist?