CathInfo.com

Sorry to say but the plank in your eye is showing.

So a bunch of posters are attacking females wearing pants as a concept (in the abstract) and for this, you are going to judge a half-dozen Catholics personally. Gotcha. You do realize how ironic that is, right? Not only are YOU the one guilty of personally judging, but we are actually NOT guilty of judging anyone to begin with.

By the way, fraternal charity only applies to HUMAN BEINGS with immortal souls. Organizations, corporations, policies, and political positions do not qualify for our charity, "making excuses for them", "giving the benefit of the doubt", "only thinking the best", etc.

As a matter of fact, sin and error in the abstract must be attacked mercilessly, harshly, relentlessly, giving NO quarter. It's only when applied to individuals that you should put on the kid gloves and be charitable.

If you know of any faults the various posters here are guilty of, PLEASE by all means attack these faults in the abstract in another thread. Be my guest. Sin and evil must always be criticized and attacked. But in the abstract, not making it personal or attacking individuals. Criticism of individuals is only appropriate when they are public figures.

I know that for females, everything is personal, everything is individual, and everything is about feelings. But not on a discussion forum. Quite the opposite! We are supposed to be talking about abstract ideas, principles, concepts, morality, etc.

I am all for acting as the saints did when it comes to INDIVIDUALS. Offer every possible excuse for their behavior, and assume only the best. Certainly do not judge them! But we're not talking about individuals here. We're talking about concepts, Catholic culture, morality, and the public policy of the SSPX as an organization.

No one has talked about (much less judged!) any of these women pictured as individuals. I couldn't care less about their private lives or individual circuмstances. My only concern is for the picture as a whole, and the organization (SSPX) which promotes/condones such dress for women as a general rule.

Matthew

  I agree that you don't want to run around like Jansenists practically swooning from scandal every time you see a woman in pants.

This was why I disagreed with OP’s original post, was because it sounded like the typical, ‘LOOK, look over here at these SSPX-ers and their loser wardrobe! Whatta buncha modernist libs!’ 
I mean, posters here don’t even need to say those exact words to come off that way. It is uncharitable and Traditionals lose credibility in an online public forum that others outside of their circle read too. 

The women are NOT wearing professional attire, even by worldly standards.  The men, also, don't look well dressed.  I work twice a week at a NYC (Manhattan) business concern.  If women wear pants, they must be pant suits, matching top and bottom with a jacket top that covers to the thighs.  Men must wear conservatively colored three piece suits with the jacket or vest on.  
What is pictured here would be acceptable only once a month on casual Friday.  If an employee will be doing business in person with a client on that day, then formal attire is still required.

At my full-time job, dress standards are a little loser, but women are to wear modest skirts or dresses, and men suits and ties.  It is permissible to remove one's jacket in warm weather, but not ties.  Women may wear no shorter than 3" below the knee, and no shorter than 1/4 sleeves.  Longer is preferred.  This is a concern run by conservative Protestants.  Also disallowed, tattoos that anyone can see, long hair or jewelery on men, male style or extreme hairstyles, excessive jewelry on women.  Bare legs are also a no-no.  

To my way of thinking, the SSPX office workers look generally too casual for the office.  And really, whats with the high boots on the woman?  It's immodest for some, and unprofessional for all.