Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: CampeadorShin on January 01, 2007, 10:27:21 PM
-
A friend convinced me that ladies should wear dressees! :p
But I can see situations in which they'd have to wear pants.
Your thoughts?
-
Well, women should wear dresses. Modest dresses to be more precise. I am not sure exactly what situations could be exceptions at all though. If anyone could answer this question then as well: What proper explanation can be given to consider St. Joan of Arc as a case of an exception, considering the proper dress of women? I am positive there must be a logical and justified explanation for the situation of St. Joan of Arc concerning the dress of women, but I am not sure how to properly explain it.
EDITED
-
From "Outlines of Moral Theology" by Rev Francis J.Connell, imprimatur 1958, on the matter of "Modesty and Immodesty":
"... it is not good to develop a prudish attitude or to give young folks the impression that things which in themselves are lawful are sinful... Girls should not be expected to dress as their grandmothers did. Styles are largely arbitrary, and a form of dress which offers no danger to the average person beholding it is to be regarded as permissible."
Do women's trousers (I don't mean hipsters or tight trousers, but reasonable ones) offer any danger to the average person beholding them?
Men never used to wear trousers.
Why are trousers considered intrinsically male? Because they wore them first??
Men shouldn't wear women's trousers. Women shouldn't wear men's.
Clare.
-
Clarification!
"Trousers" is English for "pants"!
Clare.
-
One need only consider modesty, not fashion. Although fashion should be considered in so far as your clothing isn't such that it causes you to stand out so as to gain others' attention. A lot of the fashions today are "look at me".
There are times when pants are the only intelligent thing to wear (horse back riding, skiing, weeding the garden). But they can be loose and worn with a long, loose top, leaving you as modestly clad as any dress.
I don't, however, see the danger in leaving one's arms exposed.
-
There is the issue of psychology, too.
Men and women should look different from one another -- including their vesture.
Also, pants pose additional problems. Such as the psychological tendency for the viewer to "follow the line" which leads to the groin/buttocks area. Although someone with VERY GOOD custody of the eyes could just avoid looking altogether, it's virtually impossible because it goes against our psychology. Rather like expecting good Catholics to avoid even glancing at the sudden apperance of a naked person streaking through a store or neighborhood. It's just too hard. Especially when pants aren't as rare as a streaker, but ALL AROUND YOU.
One might say, "Then men shouldn't wear pants either, if they are an occasion of sin!"
But there are several reasons that this isn't true. Namely:
1. Men are more turned on physically than women. Until they develop much vice, women don't start out ogling men physically. (I know that some do today -- but they are very far gone -- just as many women embrace ways of life that do NOT go along with their nature (e.g. career instead of family), and actually make them unhappy.)
2. Tight pants are forbidden to MEN as well as women, for reasons of modesty.
3. Assuming the pants aren't tight, there isn't much to be shown off by a man wearing pants. They don't normally have shapely hips designed to turn on the opposite sex (as is the case with women).
4. Men and women are different, including their vocations. Men need to do many kinds of work which require the freedom that pants allow. Women can easily watch the kids, cook, do laundry, etc. in a skirt or dress. Priests, monks, brothers and nuns managed to do all their work in a dress-like garment -- so pants aren't THAT necessary to get around.
In Christ,
Matthew
-
Men and women should look different from one another -- including their vesture.
But men and women didn't used to wear clothes as different from each other as trousers and skirts are!
One might say, "Then men shouldn't wear pants either, if they are an occasion of sin!"
But there are several reasons that this isn't true. Namely:
....
3. Assuming the pants aren't tight, there isn't much to be shown off by a man wearing pants. They don't normally have shapely hips designed to turn on the opposite sex (as is the case with women).
How can I put this delicately? Men are at more risk from wearing trousers, even loose ones, than women are! Even if women were as susceptible to being "turned on" as men are, they wouldn't have the, er, physical evidence, that sometimes accompanies it! Something that flowing robes would conceal!
Isn't there a blushing smiley round here somewhere?
Clare.
-
Chant is shy a few emoticons.
Chant and I are usually so very attuned to one another that it is rare we disagree. But on this male/female thing we invariably disagree. I'm not sure why. Oh, well, a good argument keeps the blood running.
I do agree about the difference between men and women. But there is an old saying---clothes don't make the man. Nor do they make the woman. Keeping a firm on eye on the reason for modesty AND humility ought to ensure modest garb, no matter which it is. A long, loose sweater or shirt totally hides the "line" and the curves, in so far as they can be hidden. Dresses can do more than that and often do less. The curves are, after all, God's work, and nothing short of a tent can hide that. And nothing short of a miracle can halt the imagination of some men.
Try crawling in skirts, Chant. I guarantee you grief.
-
I see nothing wrong with St. Joan of Ark wearing pants.
They were NEEDED for battle in that period of time in that part of the world.
God told her to go into battle.
For battle she would NEED pants.
She wore pants.
That simple, nothin wrong kepha.
-
Notification concerning
Men's Dress Worn By Women
By Giuseppe Cardinal Siri
Genoa,
June 12, 1960
To the Reverend Clergy,
To all Teaching sisters,
To the beloved sons of Catholic Action,
To Educators intending truly to follow Christian Doctrine.1
I
The first signs of our late arriving spring indicate that there is this year a certain increase in the use of men's dress by girls and women, even family mothers. Up until 1959, in Genoa, such dress usually meant the person was a tourist, but now it seems to be a significant number of girls and women from Genoa itself who are choosing at least on pleasure trips to wear men's dress (men's trousers).
The extension of this behavior obliges us to take serious thought, and we ask those to whom this Notification is addressed to kindly lend to the problem all the attention it deserves from anyone aware of being in any way responsible before God.
We seek above all to give a balanced moral judgment upon the wearing of men's dress by women. In fact Our thoughts can only bear upon the moral question.2
Firstly, when it comes to covering of the female body, the wearing of men's trousers by women cannot be said to constitute AS SUCH A GRAVE OFFENSE AGAINST MODESTY, because trousers certainly cover more of woman's body than do modern women's skirts.
Secondly, however, clothes to be modest need not only to cover the body but also not to cling too closely to the body.3 Now it is true that much feminine clothing today clings closer than do some trousers, but trousers can be made to cling closer, in fact generally they do, so the tight fit of such clothing gives us not less grounds for concern than does exposure of the body. So the immodesty of men's trousers on women is an aspect of the problem which is not to be left out of an over-all judgment upon them, even if it is not to be artificially exaggerated either.
II
However, it is a different aspect of women's wearing of men's trousers which seems to us the gravest.4
The wearing of men's dress by women affects firstly the woman herself, by changing the feminine psychology proper to women; secondly it affects the woman as wife of her husband, by tending to vitiate relationships between the sexes; thirdly it affects the woman as mother of her children by harming her dignity in her children's eyes. Each of these points is to be carefully considered in turn:--
A. MALE DRESS CHANGES THE PSYCHOLOGY OF WOMAN.
In truth, the motive impelling women to wear men's dress is always that of imitating, nay, of competing with, the man who is considered stronger, less tied down, more independent. This motivation shows clearly that male dress is the visible aid to bringing about a mental attitude of being "like a man."5 Secondly, ever since men have been men, the clothing a person wears, demands, imposes and modifies that person's gestures, attitudes and behavior, such that from merely being worn outside, clothing comes to impose a particular frame of mind inside.
Then let us add that woman wearing man's dress always more or less indicates her reacting to her femininity as though it is inferiority when in fact it is only diversity. The perversion of her psychology is clear to be seen.6
These reasons, summing up many more, are enough to warn us how wrongly women are made to think by the wearing of men's dress.
B. MALE DRESS TENDS TO VITIATE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN.
In truth when relationships between the two sexes unfold with the coming of age, an instinct of mutual attraction is predominant. The essential basis of this attraction is a diversity between the two sexes which is made possible only by their complementing or completing one another. If then this "diversity" becomes less obvious because one of its major external signs is eliminated and because the normal psychological structure is weakened, what results is the alteration of a fundamental factor in the relationship.
The problem goes further still. Mutual attraction between the sexes is preceded both naturally, and in order of time, by that sense of shame which holds the rising instincts in check, imposes respect upon them, and tends to lift to a higher level of mutual esteem and healthy fear everything that those instincts would push onwards to uncontrolled acts. To change that clothing which by its diversity reveals and upholds nature's limits and defense-works, is to flatten out the distinctions and to help pull down the vital defense-works of the sense of shame.
It is at least to hinder that sense. And when the sense of shame is hindered from putting on the brakes, then relationships between man and women sink degradingly down to pure sensuality, devoid of all mutual respect or esteem.
Experience is there to tell us that when woman is de-feminised, then defenses are undermined and weakness increases.7
C. MALE DRESS HARMS THE DIGNITY OF THE MOTHER IN HER CHILDREN'S EYES.
All children have an instinct for the sense of dignity and decorum of their mother. Analysis of the first inner crisis of children when they awaken to life around them even before they enter upon adolescence, shows how much the sense of their mother counts. Children are as sensitive as can be on this point. Adults have usually left all that behind them and think no more on it. But we would do well to recall to mind the severe demands that children instinctively make of their own mother, and the deep and even terrible reactions roused in them by observation of their mother's misbehavior. Many lines of later life are here traced out -- and not for good -- in these early inner dramas of infancy and childhood.
The child may not know the definition of exposure, frivolity or infidelity, but he possesses an instinctive sixth sense to recognize them when they occur, to suffer from them, and be bitterly wounded by them in his soul.
III
Let us think seriously on the import of everything said so far, even if woman's appearing in man's dress does not immediately give rise to all the upset caused by grave immodesty.
The changing of feminine psychology does fundamental and, in the long run, irreparable damage to the family, to conjugal fidelity, to human affections and to human society.8 True, the effects of wearing unsuitable dress are not all to be seen within a short time. But one must think of what is being slowly and insidiously worn down, torn apart, perverted.
Is any satisfying reciprocity between husband and wife imaginable, if feminine psychology be changed? Or is any true education of children imaginable, which is so delicate in its procedure, so woven of imponderable factors in which the mother's intuition and instinct play the decisive part in those tender years? What will these women be able to give their children when they will so long have worn trousers that their self-esteem goes more by their competing with the men than by their functioning as women?
Why, we ask, ever since men have been men, or rather since they became civilized -- why have men in all times and places been irresistibly borne to make a differentiated division between the functions of the two sexes? Do we not have here strict testimony to the recognition by all mankind of a truth and a law above man?
To sum up, wherever women wear men's dress, it is to be considered a factor in the long run tearing apart human order.
IV
The logical consequence of everything presented so far is that anyone in a position of responsibility should be possessed by a SENSE of ALARM in the true and proper meaning of the word, a severe and decisive ALARM.9
We address a grave warning to parish priests, to all priests in general and to confessors in particular, to members of every kind of association, to all religious, to all nuns, especially to teaching Sisters.
We invite them to become clearly conscious of the problem so that action will follow. This consciousness is what matters. It will suggest the appropriate action in due time. But let it not counsel us to give way in the face of inevitable change, as though we are confronted by a natural evolution of mankind, and so on!
Men may come and men may go, because God has left plenty of room for the to and fro of their free-will; but the substantial lines of nature and the not less substantial lines of Eternal Law have never changed, are not changing and never will change. There are bounds beyond which one may stray as far as one sees fit, but to do so ends in death10; there are limits which empty philosophical fantasizing may have one mock or not take seriously, but they put together an alliance of hard facts and nature to chastise anybody who steps over them. And history has sufficiently taught, with frightening proof from the life and death of nations, that the reply to all violators of the outline of "humanity" is always, sooner or later, catastrophe.
From the dialectic of Hegel onwards, we have had dinned in our ears what are nothing but fables, and by dint of hearing them so often, many people end up by getting used to them, if only passively. But the truth of the matter is that Nature and Truth, and the Law bound up in both, go their imperturbable way, and they cut to pieces the simpletons who upon no grounds whatsoever believe in radical and far-reaching changes in the very structure of man.11
The consequences of such violations are not a new outline of man, but disorders, hurtful instability of all kinds, the frightening dryness of human souls, the shattering increase in the number of human castaways, driven long since out of people's sight and mind to live out their decline in boredom, sadness and rejection. Aligned on the wrecking of the eternal norms are to be found the broken families, lives cut short before their time, hearths and homes gone cold, old people cast to one side, youngsters willfully degenerate and -- at the end of the line -- souls in despair and taking their own lives. All of which human wreckage gives witness to the fact that the "line of God" does not give way, nor does it admit of any adaption to the delirious dreams of the so-called philosophers! 12
V
We have said that those to whom the present Notification is addressed are invited to take serious alarm at the problem in hand. Accordingly they know what they have to say, starting with little girls on their mother's knee.
They know that without exaggerating or turning into fanatics, they will need to strictly limit how far they tolerate women dressing like men, as a general rule.
They know they must never be so weak as to let anyone believe that they turn a blind eye to a custom which is slipping downhill and undermining the moral standing of all institutions.
They, the priests, know that the line they have to take in the confessional, while not holding women dressing like men to be automatically a grave fault, must be sharp and decisive.13
Everybody will kindly give thought to the need for a united line of action, reinforced on every side by the cooperation of all men of good will and all enlightened minds, so as to create a true dam to hold back the flood.
Those of you responsible for souls in whatever capacity understand how useful it is to have for allies in this defensive campaign men of the arts, the media and the crafts. The position taken by fashion design houses, their brilliant designers and the clothing industry, is of crucial importance in this whole question. Artistic sense, refinement and good taste meeting together can find suitable but dignified solution as to the dress for women to wear when they must use a motorcycle or engage in this or that exercise or work. What matters is to preserve modesty together with the eternal sense of femininity, that femininity which more than anything else all children will continue to associate with the face of their mother.14
We do not deny that modern life sets problems and makes requirements unknown to our grandparents. But we state that there are values more needing to be protected than fleeting experiences, and that for anybody of intelligence there are always good sense and good taste enough to find acceptable and dignified solutions to problems as they come up.13
Out of charity we are fighting against the flattening out of mankind, against the attack upon those differences on which rests the complementarity of man and woman.
When we see a woman in trousers, we should think not so much of her as of all mankind, of what it will be when women will have masculinized themselves for good. Nobody stands to gain by helping to bring about a future age of vagueness, ambiguity, imperfection and, in a word, monstrosities.15
This letter of Ours is not addressed to the public, but to those responsible for souls, for education, for Catholic associations. Let them do their duty, and let them not be sentries caught asleep at their post while evil crept in.
Giuseppe Cardinal Siri
Archbishop of Genoa
Take the modesty pledge!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translator's Notes (Bishop Williamson):
At the end of the Cardinal's Notification, he explains that it is not addressed by him directly to the public at large, but only indirectly, through the Catholic leaders here listed. However, that was in 1960, when the Church still had a framework of leaders. In 1997, those capable by their Faith of responding to the Cardinal's instruction are scattered amongst the public at large, to whom therefore his instruction is fittingly diffused.
The Cardinal heads off many objections at the outset when he reminds us by what right he tackles such a subject at all: as a teacher of Faith and morals. Who can reasonably deny that clothing (especially, but not only, women's) involves morals and so the salvation of souls?
Jeans are now virtually universal. How many women's jeans are not tight-fitting?
Trousers on women are worse than mini-skirts, said Bishop de Castro Mayer, because while mini-skirts attack the senses, women's trousers attack man's highest spiritual faculty, the mind. Cardinal Siri explains why, in depth.
When the women wish to be like men (somebody said, the feminists are more scornful of womanhood than anybody), it is up to the men to make women proud of being women.
The enormous increase since 1960 in the practice and public flaunting of the vice against nature is surely to be attributed in part to this perversion of psychology.
When woman is feminine, she has the strength God gives to her. When she is de-feminised, she has only the strength she gives herself.
For an example of this damage, see the relationship between the sexes as portrayed in Rock music.
In 1997, can we say the Cardinal was exaggerating?
All great art and literature testifies to this moral structure of the universe which one violates at one's peril and which is as much part of the natural order as its physical structure. The plays of Shakespeare are a famous example. The Cardinal is here at the heart of the question.
It has been said, God is ready to forgive always, man sometimes, nature never.
The Cardinal is not just indulging in rhetoric. Pink Floyd's misery is an example of this "human wreckage".
How much wisdom and balance in all these apparently severe conclusions of the Cardinal!
In other words, the femininity of the mother, not of Eve.
In 1997 we see all around us the age of monstrosities which in 1960 Cardinal Siri was doing his best to prevent. In the Cardinal's own country, Italy, the birth-rate has been pushed lowest in all of Europe! Italian youth is devastated. The Cardinal was not listened to then. Will he be listened to now?
www.olrl.org/virtues/
Check out the resources on Novus Ordo watch. They have a wonder selection of readings on this subject.
Then, head over to Tradition in Action read Dr.Marian Horvat on culture, dress, manners.
http://www.lffa-ollmpc.com/SHOP/MODPUR01.htm
Check out this site. The owner has a wonderful website and a great book that I have read and have read to my daughters.
I am usually in skirts, still have to do pants once in a while because of the lack of funds to replace them with skirts.
Remember, ladies used to ride bikes and horses in skirts until Amelia Bloomer one of the first femi-nαzι/lesbos invented bloomers.
-
That notification from Cardinal Siri seems to be the only docuмent ever produced!
It ain't infallible!
And I maintain that women's trousers are not men's dress!
I agree women shouldn't wear men's clothes. Women's trousers aren't men's clothes. Any more than blouses are shirts!
Clare.
-
Are you talking cotton or polyester slacks, rather than blue jeans, Clare? Those are female. Certainly no man would be caught dead in them.
Cardinal Siri has a very legitimate point about the mentality being bound up in the clothes. Either mentality (temptress or butch) is bad, bad. :bullhorn: I wonder, though, which comes first. The clothes or the mentality?
-
No, Siri was just one lone Cardinal so he could not speak ex cathedra. However Popes have taught these things I know for sure Pius XII. I am sure Matthew knows which others have taught these things.
It would be on morals so it should be listened to.
Which came first the sin or the vulgar dress? The sin, remember when Adam and Eve ate of the apple then they saw their nudity and were ashamed, some early teachers say that shame came because they saw what men and women would be capable of doing to each other with their gift of sɛҳuąƖity.
-
So, you are saying that the clothing is a symptom, rather than the cause.
-
A friend convinced me that ladies should wear dressees!...But I can see situations in which they'd have to wear pants.
It is much more practical and safe to wear certain types of clothing in certain situations. Wearing pants is not, in and of itself, a mortal sin for a woman - as some seem to argue - nor are pants the normal, appropriate attire for women.
-
It still all comes down to what is inside being the source of evil. A spiritually well person would not even want to mess with gender or be the occasion of sin, and that would be reflected in all ways.
I still say pants are necessary for any crawling activity, because when you try to crawl in a skirt, all you do is crawl UP it, and you can't go very far inside a skirt. And to ride a horse with a skirt on is less modest than pants.
-
I still say pants are necessary for any crawling activity...
LOL!!!
Please name all the 'crawling activites' that you can. Then, narrow it down to those that are actually necessary in the average way of life!
It does seem (as I believe you are indicating) to boil down to the desire to be 'free' versus the desire to please God, and help the weakest of your neighbors, in all things.
-
No, Siri was just one lone Cardinal so he could not speak ex cathedra.
Well, come to think of it, there are those who reckon he was Pope, so maybe....! :scratchchin:
Clare.
-
Which came first the sin or the vulgar dress? The sin, remember when Adam and Eve ate of the apple then they saw their nudity and were ashamed,
But was Adam thereafter clothed in trousers, and Eve in a dress?
No. As I say, the only claim men have over trousers, is that they realised they were more practical first!
Clare.
-
Not for me it doesn't. The crawling activity I have most in mind is weeding the garden. However, scrubbing floors can be on the list, too, especially if they are large floors. I do not use a mop---all they do is smear the dirt around. And you would truly laugh, Veritatis, if you watched a woman crawling along pulling her skirt out from under her knees with each "step" forward.
Another good thing about pants is that they protect your knees somewhat, too. Even a very, very small pebble squished between your knee and a hard wood floor hurts like the dickens. But then, how public are these activities to harm the sensiblities of anyone?
The last time I wore pants was when I had to go out into the pond. I loath the feel of crawdads and whatever else brushing up against my legs.
-
Not for me it doesn't.
I realize that you are not looking to be 'free', but many are, and I think we simply had a small miscommunicado here.
The crawling activity I have most in mind is weeding the garden. However, scrubbing floors can be on the list, too, especially if they are large floors.
I would simply ask a lady to look at the various religious orders that have - for hundreds of years - been houses of prayer and labor, all done in a rather lengthy habit. I am not saying that there might not be some activities where pants are truly necessary. However, I also think those reigious women would have a counter-argument (or some simple tips) for you on these two points at least.
Another good thing about pants is that they protect your knees somewhat, too. Even a very, very small pebble squished between your knee and a hard wood floor hurts like the dickens.
I know, as I have had many an object between my knees and the floor. I have also worn a cassock for rather extended periods, and understand some of the real differences better than the average man.
One thing I do not understand is why most women who argue in favor of pants for say, cold weather, do not just wear the pants (or some solid stockings) under the skirt [I realize many, or even most, do so]. I wore pants under the cassock every time I put it on, and this seems like an agreeable solution to some of the concerns I have heard expressed.
-
Sorry about the miscommunicado.
I think the nuns and monks of yore probably did their weeding stoop style. Makes my back scream to think of it. And I can see why they couldn't up and ditch their habits for such things. So for them it had to be taken as a penance, I'm sure.
But in the here and now, in the privacy of my own garden or house, and in my state in life, I can find no hint of impropriety in wearing pants for the expeditious furtherance of a job to be done. Not that I do, given my small jobs, but if I had a large job I would.
Yes, pants or tights on under your skirts (cassock) is even better than alone.
-
I would simply ask a lady to look at the various religious orders that have - for hundreds of years - been houses of prayer and labor, all done in a rather lengthy habit. I am not saying that there might not be some activities where pants are truly necessary. However, I also think those reigious women would have a counter-argument (or some simple tips) for you on these two points at least.
Laymen don't have to wear casocks like priests. Laywomen don't have to wear habits like nuns!
Men coped well for centuries before they realise trousers would be more practical!
And dozy women took longer to twig! By which time it was decided that trousers were men's because they wore them first!
Some cultures seem to think trousers are immodest on men, hence the long shirts or tunics the menfolk wear over them too!
I know men and women are different. But the anti-trousers on women position is just illogical.
Fashions change. I don't see how "bifurcated garments" are immodest, unless they're tight! Or short.
But I've even read that cullottes are unacceptable!
It's just daft! Not every new fad or fashion has to be reacted to! Each must be judged according to its modesty.
Clare.
-
Culottes made the list cause they are ugly. Okay, just my opinion. As far as when I scrub floors or work in the garden I put some padding there, such as a towel. I manage fine enough playing trains and cars on the floor too.
Added benefit, these days I can where some of the most out of date, worn out clothes and ladies chide me for always being over dressed. :rolleyes: BTW I usually have on socks, no shoes and ha ha no pearl necklace either.
-
It's just daft! Not every new fad or fashion has to be reacted to! Each must be judged according to its modesty.
Nor does each statement need to be "reacted to" as if it were argumentative (although I realize this medium is hard to assess accurately at times). Yes, modesty is THE key. Btw, exclamation points at the end of practically every bloomin' sentence render them rather pointless and ineffective.
As for your particular "points", I will - if it strikes me as profitable to the exchange - deal with them in another post. In this hard to guage medium, I am (perhaps incorrectly) receiving the impression that you are presently too emotionally charged where this topic is concerned to discuss this matter with any real profit. God speed.
-
Btw, exclamation points at the end of practically every bloomin' sentence render them rather pointless and ineffective.
It's a habit. I often do it. It's to show I'm not angry! If I were angry or emotionally charged I'd write in capitals and bold!
It's just the way I write!
And I also often begin sentences with "And"! Poetic licence.
Clare!
-
Okay, since when does our outward appearence have anythign to do with what our heart of hearts screams to our Father?
Welcome to the site.
A man's external appearance is a rather accurate reflection of his inner dispositions. Even a man who is poorer than poor will dress himself with order and dignity, and comport himself accordingly, if his heart is in order. Does the present, ultra-slovenly era really dress as it does without reason? No, it is a reflection of the grave disorder in the hearts of men.
Eve AND Adam were naked and God did not strike them down for being immodest.
As the original sin had not yet been committed, it is no wonder that God was not angry with their non-existent immodesty. Immodesty only came into play with the three-fold consupiscence.
-
Immodesty only came into play with the three-fold consupiscence.
I wonder: how concupiscence is three-fold, gladius? :smirk:
-
Eve AND Adam were naked and God did not strike them down for being immodest.
As the original sin had not yet been committed, it is no wonder that God was not angry with their non-existent immodesty. Immodesty only came into play with the three-fold consupiscence.
But did he clothe Adam in trousers and Eve in a skirt, after the Fall?
Clare.
-
Clare! Your tongue is in your cheek!
-
This hasn't happened on here so much (I don't think), but on other message boards, such discussions often go ALL OVER THE PLACE as far as distractions go.
Many times in the past, I have found it disturbing how many people are so personally implicated in this issue, that they feel the need to "muddy the waters" with humor and distractions.
Why not enter into yourselves and ask why you are unable to be different from the pants-wearing women around you? Why do you want to show off your body shape to the men around you? Are you REALLY trying to wear clothing that conceals rather than reveals -- at least your form, if not your skin as well? Are you totally unscathed by the vice that affects women especially -- the vice of vanity? Are you truly willing to do anything to help the men around you to save their souls?
Hopefully the questions can be answered in a favorable manner -- but at least ask them. You owe it to the Truth to do so.
Remember, the modern world is FAR, FAR from God. The fact that most women wear pants today does NOT make it right. "If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you jump off too?" What are we, lemmings?
A person wanting to be SANE today would appear quite INSANE -- because the world is insane. If you fit in with the INSANE modern world, there is obviously disorder inside you as well.
As usual, I'm being the philosopher, sticking to principles here. I see no point in getting personal, as that just serves as a distraction.
Just a few thoughts.
Matthew
-
I found a REALLY GOOD post on another message board about this same topic. She is responding to the first paragraph, in italics.
Like it or not, we live in this society. It's impractical, irrational and impossible to behave as though we were living in the same society our grandparents and great-grandparents lived in. We can't live their lives, much as we'd like to. That means that to some extent we do have to conform our current situation. Otherwise we're just living in some isolated little bubble instead of living our lives. And if a girl has to work to help pay her way through college (or for whatever reason) and it's a choice between wearing non-immodest pants and losing her job, the practical thing is for her to wear those pants since there is no sin involved.
Well, if the person doesn't know it's a sin, then usually it is not a sin (hey, but if the person doesn't know it's a sin to dress for the purpose to provoke lust, but they know it's a sin to have lust in one's heart, by their intent they are sinning --- even with their hardened conscience, yes it's true). But for something like wearing pants because it's what the boss wants, then it's an issue of one's spiritual, interior disposition. If one is less zealous, then the sin could very well be that of spiritual sloth. Now, that's not condoning disobedience to one's superior, but there are other jobs out there.
I know a woman who did NOT live with her parents and supported herself. When she was laid off (along with over 7 thousand other employees from the same company --- mostly in her local area), the only good job offer she received was in ... guess what... the FASHION INDUSTRY out in a city that had a very liberal culture. The job would have had her working long hours, and often "on call". There was no regular 24/7 place to adore our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament because it was a big city, so she made one of the most difficult decisions of her life: to not accept the job. This decision she made having no job lined up, and NO FAMILY to help her. She knew that it was not likely that she would find a job in her industry in that area, and that she would be working entry level temp jobs for about half what she used to make. This woman sacrificed more than you care to know, but many other people make such sacrifices, too, for the love of their Lord. She still works temp jobs that are even entry level (making less than half what she used to make and struggling to survive), but she has lived according to discernment of God's Will, and for a higher good than anything the temporal world can offer.
Choosing to wear only skirts is a small sacrifice. Many good Catholic families often make greater sacrifices frequently, simply by living a good, holy life. They choose to do the holy Will of our Lord, against what the world would have them do. They are open to new life, and prefer poverty than to hold off having more children so they can go on more trips (or any), or have a new vehicle. Many of these holy mothers homeschool their own children, which is a tremendous sacrifice, since the mother never has time for herself. Her joy is in Christ, in through Christ for her children's welfare. This she considers greater than her desires for herself, to the point that her very desires for Christ and for her children is her life. This is a daily, committed sacrifice. If we cannot make the small sacrifices, how can we be successful at the bigger ones like those of these holy women?
I'd imagine that there would likely be another supermarket that would allow her to work wearing a long skirt.
While it is true that we don't live in the same society that our grandparents lived in, that doesn't make it right for us to assimilate to the spirit of today's culture. Its collective conscience is hardened, and there is little to no room for true submission to the Kingship of Christ.
What is impractical about wearing a skirt in a job where you are simply standing most of the time? Does a skirt make it harder to stand? What seems impractical is that it doesn't allow one to assimilate into the culture in the sense of being accepted in the "norm", but we don't need to be accepted by the general populace who lives by the spirit of the world, rather or at least more so than by the Spirit of Christ. We are called to be signs of contradiction, not signs to show we are just like everyone else. We are living for something that is a higher good than what the world can give us, not that public acceptance doesn't have an attraction to many who are so disposed, but to be seeking it is not to seek the will of God. We are not supposed to be concerned with human respect, but with what God thinks. God has made man and woman different in such a way that we are physical signs of a spiritual reality. Wearing clothes that either diffuse this truth, or exploit this truth in a perverse way are not living in accordance with Truth (he that is Truth).
-
Sigh! I'm going to stick my oar back into this in the interest of common sense, which is what I think Clare is arguing.
The issue isn't "pants"; the issue is modesty, with a corallary issue being gender confusion/denial in women.
Now, I've probably been around longer than the lot of you, and I've seen a lot of pants, dresses, skirts. All but a few dresses have fitted waists, and it is the waists which show off the curves. All skirts and pants have fitted waists. The ONLY way to hide those curves is with a long top, and even that only does a so-so job. So you are actually better off with pants and a long top than a dress, and certainly no better off with a skirt than with pants.
Blue jeans often fit tightly all the way up and down. Ladies slacks only fit tightly to the thighs, then are straight down from there. Some skirts and dresses do the same. So in all these cases a long, loose top is necessary to preserve from any hint of curve. Or at least, in so far as that is possible. Dresses are not a priori modest. Pants are not a priori immodest.
Ladies who wear dresses, skirts and ladies slacks do not have gender problems. If anyone disputes any of this, do it with proven facts, case histories, etc.
-
I would say that women of good will who wear pants will at least try to help their brothers in the Faith by keeping them sufficiently baggy/loose, and/or including a long shirt in the ensemble.
That should give all the "freedom benefits" of pants, while taking away most of the concerns about modesty.
Anyone arguing "for" pants shouldn't have a problem with that, right?
But to just mindlessly wear what everyone else wears, considering only how "fashionable" or "cute" something is...
Matthew
-
You have no argument on this forum that I'm aware of, Chant. It seems like that needed to be made clear, though.
I enjoyed Clare's riposte, myself.
-
I'll repeat a few of the points I've made "elsewhere"!
Off the top of my head, in no particular order:
1. Our Lord didn't wear trousers.
2. Our Lady is never depicted in a blouse and calf length skirt, or without a veil.
3. Men didn't use to wear trousers. They wore robes.
4. Men have more cause to be concerned about wearing trousers without a longish top covering them, since they risk embarrassing themselves when they get aroused (for example, by a woman in "man's clothes" which men don't find as attractive as skirts anyway! (Having it both ways, or what?))
5. Muslim women (who are very concerned about modesty) wear trousers.
6. Had there been public loos for ladies and gents some centuries ago, the signs on them would have been harder to discern than our modern "skirt=ladies'" "trousers=gents'" contrast.
7. Some trousers are more modest than some skirts.
8. That men wear trousers is not a God given tradition. It is a tradition of men. It didn't start in the Garden of Eden.
Clare.
-
If we all wore robes there would be no problem.
-
I forgot to add that short hair might just as easily be a fashion which offends Our Lord very much.
Our Lady had long hair.
St Paul says women shouldn't cut their hair.
It's copying men.
It's vanity in some cases (as distinct from the motivation behind nuns' short hair, which cannot be said to be vanity!).
It became fashionable courtesy of Coco Chanel.
So why is it ok?
Clare (yes, I have short hair! I just raise this issue, because it's an anomaly).
-
That quote was Vox's wasn't it?
-
-
Good to see you posting, Mater. You bring fresh perspective in the good, better, best. I didn't think of that. The argument seemed to me to be about being the occasion of sin or about losing one's proper place before God.
I agree that dressing as a modest female is best. But I never thought that I was acting as a role model, either. I wear long skirts, rather than dresses, and long, loose tops. But then, I'm a stick figure and in no way a fashion statement. If anything I'm probably dismissed as a frump, or an oddball. I can claim no great virtue either way.
You said this thread reminds you of FE. Does that mean our threads usually don't remind you of them?
-
-
Now that's just silly. Why men and women cover themselves at all is mostly psychological. Does this mean that bathing should be done while dressed for fear that we may be psychologically affected by the 10 minutes in the shower?
When I wear pants in my home, I don't feel completely dressed. If the doorbell rings and I'm wearing pants, I head to grab a skirt and let my dh answer the door. I do work in the backyard in pants during the day, but avoid doing so in the evening when the neighbors have returned home from work and school. Does this sound like I've been adversely affected by wearing pants in the privacy of my home?
-
Now that's just silly. Why men and women cover themselves at all is mostly psychological. Does this mean that bathing should be done while dressed for fear that we may be psychologically affected by the 10 minutes in the shower?
Not applicable, because bathing is a necessity. Wearing trousers isn't. As the ultra-rigorists argue, if a woman can't do it in a skirt, she shouldn't be doing it at all! And women managed is skirts before!
When I wear pants in my home, I don't feel completely dressed. If the doorbell rings and I'm wearing pants, I head to grab a skirt and let my dh answer the door. I do work in the backyard in pants during the day, but avoid doing so in the evening when the neighbors have returned home from work and school. Does this sound like I've been adversely affected by wearing pants in the privacy of my home?
Most women are not adversely affected by wearing trousers at all.
It's scruples again. This whole issue plants the idea that something neutral is sinful. And people waste a lot of time agonising over it.
Clare.
-
You said this thread reminds you of FE. Does that mean our threads usually don't remind you of them?
Sorry, I failed to answer your question.
Speaking of this sub-forum specifically, most of the regulars on CathInfo have the ability to discuss a topic of everyday life as a matter more of merit gained rather than sin avoided. I enjoy this as it's beneficial to us all. I don't want to hear, "such and such isn't sinful, so go right ahead." What I need is, "that's fine, probably no harm done, but what would be even better is..." There are a large number of voices of FE which will proclaim that the suggestion of avoiding anything which is not inherently sinful is prudish, scrupulous, etc.
One of the things I find so appealing about Tradition is the encouragement toward perfection. I spent my N.O. days with the understanding that if I wasn't in a state of sin, I was doing just fine. More often than not, I was so close to the edge of sin that I had no idea when and where I crossed the line. When I came to Tradition, I heard more and more that there's more than just avoiding vice, there's also building virtue. It seems that many on FE find this to be a big obstacle in relating to other Traditional Catholics.
-
'That notification from Cardinal Siri seems to be the only docuмent ever produced!
It ain't infallible!'
Even if there were an infallible docuмent commanding women not to wear men's clothing (i.e. pants/trousers), I get the distinct impression that many so-called 'traditional Catholic' women would find some way to disobey.
Let's turn the question around: Why NOT wear a skirt or a dress, if you're a female? Why NOT hold yourself to a higher standard? What have you got to lose?
-
Exactly -- I like how you put that.
I've been saying basically the same thing, but using different words.
If it doesn't matter if you wear pants/skirt, and both are equal -- how come so many women INSIST on wearing pants alone? Do they REALLY THINK that it is better in all cases? Do they think it has NO EFFECT on the psychology of themselves, their spouses, and people they deal with?
It seems mighty shallow to think that it matters little what we put over our bodies 18 hours of the day.
Everyone knows that a man in a suit feels and acts different from a man in blue jeans and a sweatshirt -- why would it be any different for women?
Plenty of women who "switched to skirts" report how men are more polite to them, see them with more respect, etc. -- so what's the problem?
Perhaps women just don't want to wear them for "the wrong reason -- because all you dominating men are telling me to!"?
Matthew
-
Let's turn the question around: Why NOT wear a skirt or a dress, if you're a female? Why NOT hold yourself to a higher standard? What have you got to lose?
I do wear skirts/dresses.
Clare.
-
If it doesn't matter if you wear pants/skirt, and both are equal -- how come so many women INSIST on wearing pants alone?
They don't.
They wear skirts sometimes too!
Have you seen every woman, every day, to know that they only wear trousers, ever?
Do they REALLY THINK that it is better in all cases?
There must be some reason why men threw away their tunics in favour of trousers, all the time! To the point that men only wear trousers these days! Perhaps trousers are better in all cases!
Do they think it has NO EFFECT on the psychology of themselves, their spouses, and people they deal with?
Yes, I do think it has no effect.
It seems mighty shallow to think that it matters little what we put over our bodies 18 hours of the day.
Everyone knows that a man in a suit feels and acts different from a man in blue jeans and a sweatshirt -- why would it be any different for women?
I feel different in a denim skirt, compared with a smarter skirt.
Plenty of women who "switched to skirts" report how men are more polite to them, see them with more respect, etc. -- so what's the problem?
When I stopped wearing trousers most of the time, I noticed no difference.
Perhaps women just don't want to wear them for "the wrong reason -- because all you dominating men are telling me to!"?
Why do you keep assuming that because women wear trousers, we don't want to wear skirts?
We wear both! We are not anti-skirt!
Clare.
-
Greetings in Christ.
I read with dismay many of the postings on the FE board concerning dress. Feminism is an issue that has profoundly affected me. My young daughters and I were abandoned by their mother 6 years ago because my wife chose the ways of the world. Feminism is one of these ways, that has sought to usurp the proper roles of men and women, including its symbols. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states: "The radical, middle-class emancipation party regards the Women's Rights Convention held 14 July, 1848, at Seneca Falls, U.S., as the date of its birth. Complete parity of the sexes in every direction with contempt for former tradition is the aim of this party."
Of course, Clare, our Lord did not wear trousers (though perhaps he did wear femoralia). But neither did his Blessed Mother, even in all of her modern apparations. If we look back at artwork into antiquity, we will see a vast difference in the way men and women dressed. Prior to the woman's rights movement of the 1800's you would never see a women depicted in anything except an ankle length skirt. Not so with man.
Yes, it is true, fashions do change, but the principles never change. I would like to share with you some writings from Archbishop Francis Fenelon. In addition to being an Archbishop in France during the 1700's, Fenelon also was a highly sought after spiritual director. This is from his book "On the Education of a Daughter":
"I would even make young girls remark that noble simplicity which appears in the drapery of statues, and in many figures which yet remain of Grecian and Roman costume. They should contemplate the superiority of hair negligently tied behind and of the broad folds of a full and floating drapery. It would also be as well for them hear painters and connoisseurs, who possess a true taste for the antique, inverse on these subjects.
In proportion as their understanding rose superior to the prejudices of fashion, they would hold in contempt those artificial modes of twisting and curling the hair, and all the paraphernalia of a fashionable woman. I am aware that one should not wish them to assume an entirely-antique costume of dress, which would be extravagant, and sometimes indecent : but they mighty without the affectation of singularity, model their taste on that simplicity of attire, which is so noble, so delightful, and in all respects conformable to the manners of Christians.-Make them observe often, and by times, the vanity and frivolousness of that mind which is sacrificed to the inconstancy of fashion.* True grace follows, but never does violence to nature.
Fashion, however, soon destroys it self : it is perpetually aiming at perfection, and never finds it ; at least, it never -stops when it has found it. It would be reasonable enough if all changing and alteration were to cease after having found perfection, comprising both elegance and utility : but to change for the sake of changing, appears very much like sacrificing true politeness and good taste to inconstancy and confusion ! Fashions are frequently founded on mere caprice. Women are the sole arbitrators of them ; and it being difficult to say, who is to be believed or imitated, the most giddy and least informed seduce and influence the rest. They neither choose nor leave any thing according to rule: it is quite sufficient if one thing, though useful, has been long adopted : it ought to be discarded:- and another thing, though perfectly ridiculous, but having the charm of novelty, is immediately substituted in its place, and becomes the admiration of all."
So, according to Fenelon, there is indeed a guiding principle, a principle which is guided by antiquity. Notice he did not necessarily encourage young women of his day to dress exactly like this, but rather to imitate the principle.
Until the mid 1800's, pants were not seen as women's wear in the Christian world. And this includes Pope Nicholas I, who encouraged the Bulgar's to abandon their previous practice of women wearing femoralia: we declare that in our books, pants (femoralia) are ordered to be made, not in order that women may use them, but that men may. But act now so that, just as you passed from the old to the new man, [cf. Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:9-10] you pass from your prior custom to ours in all things."
I said in my opening paragraph about symbols. Our faith is one of many symbols, and these include those pertaining to man and woman. One of those symbols is a women's long hair. Consider these words by St. Ambrose of Milan:
"At the same time let us note that it is seemly to live in accordance with nature, and to pass our time in accordance with it, and that whatever is contrary to nature is shameful. For the Apostle asks: "Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered; doth not nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair , it is a shame unto him? For it is contrary to nature." And again he says: "If a woman have long hair, it is a glory unto her." (1 Cor. xi. 13, 14). It is according to nature, since her hair is given her for a veil, for it is a natural veil. Thus nature arranges for us both character and appearance, and we ought to observe her directions. Would that we could guard her innocence, and not change what we have received by our wickedness!"
Symbolism can also be used to identify an entire movement. In Clarina Nichols' biography, Revolutionary Heart: The Life of Clarina Nichols And the Pioneering Crusade for Women's Rights, it states that "Men often complained that women's rights leaders wanted to 'wear the pants' in the family...[Clarina] later joked that if men were so concerned with 'wearing the pants,' perhaps they should make a pair of men's trousers the national symbol instead of the bald eagle." (Pg. 73) Pants were not just a clothing style adopted by women for utilitarian purpose, but rather as a powerful symbol for an entire women's rights movement. The men realized that, and so did the women.
As St. John Chrysostom states, "If now these be symbols. you see that both err when they disturb the proper order, and transgress the disposition of God, and their own proper limits, both the man falling into the woman's inferioriy, and the woman rising up against the man by her outward habiliments."
I have no desire to call a woman in the traditionalist movement a feminist or worse just because she wears pants. I'm sure many do it out of pure ignorance. But as St. John Chrysostom so beautifully points out in one of his homilies on I Corinthians 11, both the symbol and the reality of the symbol are permanantly intertwined together through God's law.
I would be pleased to have a conversation with any of you in a decent and orderly manner on this board concerning this subject.
Peace be with you.
Christopher
-
Hi Miserere.
Of course, Clare, our Lord did not wear trousers (though perhaps he did wear femoralia). But neither did his Blessed Mother, even in all of her modern apparations.
Has Our Lady ever appeared without a veil?
Prior to the woman's rights movement of the 1800's you would never see a women depicted in anything except an ankle length skirt.
Are calf-length skirts unacceptable?
Clare.
-
The elf lady in Lord of The Rings rode that horse pretty well, when she was being chased, and SHE was wearing a dress! :good-shot:
-
The elf lady in Lord of The Rings rode that horse pretty well, when she was being chased, and SHE was wearing a dress! :good-shot:
Don't believe everything you see in the movies, Campy! :furtive:
-
It was a joke actually. Something to ease the tension. :jumping2:
-
Hi Miserere.
Hello Clare.
Has Our Lady ever appeared without a veil?
First, I will state that I am not an expert on any of our Lady's apparations, though I am familiar with some of them. I did do a search a little while ago, and was not able to find any images of the blessed Theotokos appearing without a veil in any approved apparations of the Church. If you have one, I would like to see.
Are calf-length skirts unacceptable?
There are two applicable passages in scripture to answer this question.
First, God casts his judgement on the virgin daughter of Babylon in Isaiah 47:1-3, and speaks of those things which make her "naked": Take a millstone and grind meal: uncover thy shame, strip thy shoulder, make bare thy legs, pass over the rivers. 3 Thy nakedness shall be discovered, and thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and no man shall resist me.
In the New Testament, we need to look at I Timothy 2:9: "In like manner women also in decent apparel: adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety, not with plaited hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly attire".
The Greek word here for "apparel" is very specific, and it is the only time in the entire new testament it is used. The word is "katastole". Vines states the following about this word: katastole connected with katastello, "to send or let down, to lower" (kata, "down," stello, "to send"), was primarily a garment let down; hence, "dress, attire," in general (cp. stole, a loose outer garment worn by kings and persons of rank, Eng., "stole"). Its really a conjunction of two Greek words, kata, and stole. Here's what Vine's says about stole: "denotes any "stately robe," a long garment reaching to the feet or with a train behind."
Its interesting that St. Paul could have used many different words for "attire" here, but he used a very specific word to describe a woman's clothing. Its sad that much of this is lost in the English translations.
Finally, quoting again from St. John Chrysostom on I Timothy 2:9: "But what is this "modest apparel"? Such attire as covers them completely, and decently, not with superfluous ornaments, for the one is becoming, the other is not."
Peace be with you.
Christopher
-
I will honestly state that I fail to follow some of the reasoning about clothing and hair styles. "Some", mind you. However, I will equally honestly state that it doesn't matter to me. I've arranged what is left of my body in a manner I THINK Jesus would prefer (long skirts, long hair) solely because I want to please Him. Outside of that, I have no personal preference. I do object to things that don't make sense, though.
-
That's pretty interesting, miserere.
That's exactly the kind of stuff I'm looking to find out. There has to be more information like that out there, just waiting to be found.
Matthew
-
Hello miserere/Chris,
Nice job! Glad you used all that stuff you sent me. I'm also glad you're here. Welcome aboard!
:cheers:
:detective:
Pax tecuм.
-
There has to be more information like that out there, just waiting to be found.
Matthew
Hello Matthew,
Greetings in Christ. There is more, but you will need to do much digging because the sources will not always be obvious or readily available.
For example, I found a number of quotes on the Catholic resistance to the suffrage movement by reading books from women's rights & pro-abortion authors. I am, at present, compiling these quotes, and have plans to write a book that proves that the Catholic Church stood strongly against feminism - in both substance and symbol - during the emancipation and suffrage movements of the 19th and early 20th century. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of time to go through these books, internet sites and other materials. So if anyone has any quotable resources with references, I would be pleased to take a look at them.
If it is solidly Catholic biblical exegisis that you seek, I believe that you can do no better than the homilies of the great Saint and Doctor of the Church, St. John Chrysostom. All of his homilies can be found on newadvent.org. We could all truly profit by reading and meditating on a portion of one of his sermons each day, especially of the epistles. He is Saint that desperately needs his words to be hearkened to in these last days.
Peace be with you.
Christopher
-
miserere, you might find some info on www.savethemales, a site created to fight feminism.
-
Boy, I wouldn't call that a hang up. Even the most superficial reflection on who Jesus is and what He has done for us ought to bring us to show Him all the respect we possibly can. Deeper meditation then brings us to wanting to please Him as much as we can, out of gratitude, if nothing else. No, I wouldn't call this a hang up.
-
-
(Today's feminism is intimately connected to witchcraft and satanism.)
Since feminism was hatched by тαℓмυdists, it most certainly is connected to witchcraft and satanism.
(But what was to be expected when women were pulled out of their home? It all serves the liberal men right for so misleading their women.)
The fight to be a stay-at-home Mom has been long and arduous, but I have been reading for some years past that women are beginning to wake up and smell the trap they were led into. Many have felt that they had to get a job to make ends meet, and that is exactly what the slave masters wanted. But it's not necessarily true. There are many things that a woman can do by way of frugality and creativity to help out the paycheck, since not spending money is one way of earning money. However, this is all conditional on couples staying out of debt in the first place, because once you are in debt the only thing that will suffice is money, money and more money.
-
Note: Here is another article specifically about the proper role of Christian women written (believe it or not) by a woman. --G. Gilbert
Woman's Being and Nature
Farewell speech to girls at St. Theresien Gymnasium, SSPX secondary school for girls in Western Germany, given in the summer of 1997 by Sister Michaela, Headmistress
Woman's Calling
St. Augustine said, "Give me mothers and I will save the world!" St Pius X extended St Augustine's saying to, "Give me truly Christian mothers and I will rescue the sinking world."
There are two essential points to be established here:
1. Woman's high calling as mother and
2. The knowledge that the world can be rescued if woman corresponds to this calling of hers.
On the contrary, if woman does not correspond to this calling of hers, the world must go to ruin. This is also expressed in eastern wisdom: "If man falls, only the man falls, but if woman falls, the entire people falls."
Woman Distorted
In wide sections of modern society it is no longer so easy to talk of woman's calling. People laugh you to scorn. The word "Motherhood" is disappearing more and more from the German language. It is reaching the point now that compartments on a train formerly reserved for "Mothers with children" are now kept only for "Little children", or, at the very most, for "Women with children". And more and more children are calling their mothers only by their first name. Why is this so?
Young girls are so influenced by school, television and press that the great models of the life of woman, as honoured for centuries and centuries in literature and poetry, seem to them ridiculous. Virginity is looked down upon, or laughed at; getting married is regarded as unnecessary and motherhood is to a great extent done away with by contraception or abortion.
Surely it has never been heard of since the world began that woman was to this extent violated in her innermost being. Yet for woman to be discontented with her calling and not to find fulfilment in her vocation to motherhood is something that must have happened also in St Augustine's time in the 5th century, otherwise he would never have said what we quoted above. Doubtless he had in mind his own incomparable mother, St. Monica, who through her selfsacrificing love and unceasing prayer brought about his deep conversion. Such mothers may have been rare even in St. Augustine's time.
Woman's Being
For us to understand and value woman's vocation, for us to be able to consider it a goal worth striving after, we must first establish beyond all question that there is such a vocation as "true motherhood", that there is a given way of being, a given nature for "woman". To put it into practice is to attain deep happiness, to miss out on it causes deep unhappiness, because there is such a thing as WOMANHOOD, designed and created by God's infinite wisdom and love, a WOMANHOOD that belongs in the order of creation.
Now if man in general does not find it easy to recognize and admit the order of creation, he has a special difficulty in recognizing us women, particularly when he so shortens and misinterprets the word of God as to make it seem that man's hierarchical superiority gives him the right to tyrannize over woman however he likes. For indeed the desire to love, to serve, to give and to nurture life, the desire even to obey her man, runs so deep in woman's being that it is not difficult for her to do so. Think of the numerous women who even today endure beatings and mistreatment from their husbands for an unheard oflength of time before they at last seek refuge in a home for battered women.
Woman Misled
Had the man fulfilled his role as superior in a Christian way, had he protected his woman in her womanliness, had he respected and honoured what she does all the more for its being in general hidden, then woman would not have become what overall she represents today. Gertrude le Fort is certainly right when she writes that the dechristianization of the West was prepared long ago by anti-christian powers, and that the spiritual war they waged was aimed firstly at the world of men. Woman, whose whole being disposed her to being conservative and traditional, remained constant and faithful to what was laid down by piety and the Faith for a long time so that she kept the balance after her man had mostly apostatized, and she kept giving a Christian heritage to the rising generation.
So firstly the man was dechristianized along lines of thinking and reasoning which were to lead him into materialism and the blind adoration of technological achievement. Only then was the woman dechristianized. With woman it was not so much through reasoning as through the character of modern life with its denial of eternal life, making this world all that there is, a foreshortened world created by man and then overwhelming woman by silently but steadily pulling her away from all religion and faith. And as the Christian faith of the woman disappeared, so did the Christian family break up, and with it all morals, culture, the entire life of the people.
For whereas in past centuries, even where the strength of the Faith was broken people still held onto morals which were moulded by Christianity, on the contrary today we are facing the complete dissolution of those morals, and in many respects it is woman precisely as woman who gives us the picture of this dissolution.
Just the outward appearance of to day's woman is often in this respect revealing. How ugly are certain kinds of "dressing up" which take all soul out of the beauty of woman and stake everything on the body! Corresponding to the sheer materialism of today's man, who strives exclusively for power and dominance, is a woman who in her own way has also betrayed the spirit for material advantage, tender and holy love for fleeting pleasure, self-sacrificing fidelity for the meaningless thrill of vanity. Not only does she correspond to her man, she helped to create him .... Now we too understand the saying, "If woman falls, the entire people falls".
St. Therese Gymnasium
In order to work against this decline of Western civilization - at least as far as it lies in the power of individuals to do so - the Society of St Pius X founded six years ago this secondary school for girls in Germany. And we were by no means disheartened. If the negative form of the saying runs "When woman falls, a whole people falls", positively turned it says, "When woman heals, her whole people heals".
But how can woman heal?
The Healing of Woman
By her recalling her vocation, which - as said above - comes not from men alone but from God; by her becoming conscious again of her nobility and the worth of her calling.
+ Firstly, she must turn away from purely earthly materialism and seek to realize who she is in relationship to God. She must learn once more to pray and to inwardly digest the truths of the Catholic Faith. That will give her the strength to be pure and chaste, which gives her a shining power to influence those around her and to set moral standards.
+ Secondly, she must accept the order of God's creation and recognize - despite all present tendencies to level out the sexes - that man and woman are precisely not equal, but complement one another and have each their different task to fulfil for God in complementary fashion. That means her learning once more to dress and carry herself differently from man, in womanly fashion, and that she once and for all give up imitating man.
+Thirdly she must realize that by being specially designed for motherhood she is called to take part in the giving and serving of new life. To this task corresponds not only the build of her body but also the whole structure of her soul. In this connection there are a number of endowments of woman's being which can be troublesome if they are not disciplined by a strong formation of the will, through "faithfulness in little things", as St Theresa never tired of emphasizing. These womanly endowments are self-giving, love oflittle details, patient care and tough endurance, capacity for deep feeling and a great ability to love.
+ Fourthly, just as the mother in the hour of giving birth is ready to lay down her life for her child, so too from that birth onwards her life no longer belongs to herself but to the child. The love without measure which streams from the mother means that she gives her own self away in sacrifice. That has always been the world's experience of motherhood. This significant characteristic of mothers' being is not however confined to bodily motherhood because it can be found elsewhere, for example in the spiritual motherhood of religious Sisters or even in unmarried women...
+Fifthly, woman is not only the mother of her children, but also the helpmate of her husband, the one with whom he can talk over everything, who advises him, who takes an interest in what he does, who supports and encourages him in his work. That means that the woman also takes time to keep abreast of events, that she forms her own judgment as to what is happening in the world in which her husband and children live.
+ Sixthly, her inclination to give of herself involves also her daily duties. Everything that goes under the name of culture would have no meaning were it not carefully looked after with loving hands and admiring hearts. Self-giving is called for if the table is always to be laid with love and if feastdays are by an extra effort to be more joyfully celebrated. If the woman makes a true home for her husband and children, what is she doing if not handing down a heritage received, and looking after cultural assets entrusted to her, such as language, music, art, poetry?
Woman and Culture
This looking after culture and handing it down is pre-eminently woman's task, as it is preeminently man's task to create culture. Both man and woman are involved in culture, as culture is specifically human.
Animals have no culture, they do not need it, their action or inaction is entirely regulated by instinct. It cannot be thus with men. For what with animals is regulated by instinct, with men is regulated by spirit, that is to say by reason and will. That is why with man as opposed to animals there is not only nature but also culture. Whatever comes under reason and will can be regulated in accordance with man's nobility as a spiritual being oriented towards the supreme values of truth, goodness and beauty, and if it is, then there is culture, otherwise there is unculture or barbarism. Thus there is a culture of eating and drinking, whereas with animals there is only swilling and feeding. Likewise there is a culture of living, of sleeping, of dressing, of care for the body, over and above which there is a culture of care "for the heart and soul", a culture of feeling, thinking, mixing with one's fellow-men, of mixing between the sexes. All these things can be "cultivated", i.e. raised to the height of human nobility, or they can be uncultivated, i.e. fall into a barbarism beneath the level of animals.
Man and woman are as human beings equal and so both are carriers of culture, but if they are equal in worth they are not equal in kind. Thus both playa part in culture, but not the same part, man rather creating what woman rather conserves. That is why the cultural role of the woman is so important, which goes to explain the saying,
By menfolk come the times of building tall
But women make the people stand or fall.
To sum up: for the world to heal, there must again be mothers who
1. are religious, pure and Catholic,
2. are ready to accept their hierarchical subordination beneath men and to recognize the proper worth of woman,
3. accept as a vocation their being structured for motherhood,
4. are ready to give themselves up for children and family,
5. continue to learn for the sake of their work in family, society and State,
6. and are conscious carriers of culture.
Girls, into your hands...!
Dear graduates! For six years we have striven with might and main to convey to you the spirit and bearing of the true woman of the Christian West. Now you are plied upon to gefend that spirit against a purely materialistic view of life. You will enjoy being at last on your own and independent, but you will soon also realize that it is not so easy to withstand all the temptations of freedom or to find people who think as you do. Most young people today live at a huge distance from things of the spirit: they value too highly what gives them raw pleasure, like eating, drinking, smoking, playing,relevision. It is your task to raise on high the spiritual values in life and absorb them into your lives: the language of the poets, noble music, art, wise words of the thinkers, or meaningful books...
May God grant you to keep the Faith and to have the strength to resist the spirit of the age, to swim against the current and as Christian mothers, be it by physical or spiritual motherhood, to rescue our sinking world. For that purpose I wish you all the blessing of God, the Mother of God's protection, and the intercession of our patron, St. Theresa of the Child Jesus.
St. Theresien Gymnasium, St. Vinzenzstr., D 53809 Schanenberg, West Germany
-
How can anyone possibly say that skirts (or dresses) are no better than pants with respect to modesty in women?
What kind of skirts and dresses do you choose to wear?
* * * *
It is not Catholic modesty in contemporary society for women to wear pants or revealing clothing in any circuмstance, even at home, in which they could become an occasion of sin to anyone, or a deleterious example to any immature person, whether their own children or someone else's. In the old days the Catholic sense would have told women that. It is only because we are now so far gone, that people no longer have any such Catholic sense left.
* * * *
In the society of Joan of Arc, no woman who wanted to appear womanly would have chosen to wear men's clothing. Joan was to lead an army of men into battle. She needed to do what was necessary that she should avoid any womanliness of appearance, given that the role she was called to play was one that normally fell only to the male sex.
-
LONG TOPS!
-
miserere, you might find some info on www.savethemales, a site created to fight feminism.
I really like Henry Makow quite a bit.
I would be interested in what some of the Catholic women here think of the current article he has posted about make-up. I think it brings up some really good points.
-
A man's external appearance is a rather accurate reflection of his inner dispositions. Even a man who is poorer than poor will dress himself with order and dignity, and comport himself accordingly, if his heart is in order. Does the present, ultra-slovenly era really dress as it does without reason? No, it is a reflection of the grave disorder in the hearts of men.
I noticed this while I was at a ladies only silent retreat this weekend. Now, upfront, I will say that this retreat was not run by any traditional order of priests and the 2 other women I rode with and I were the only traditionalists there. We avoided a lot of the conferences and spent much of our time in silent prayer.
I have been thinking more about modesty and dress since I began going to the TLM. I knew enough when I began going to dress up. At first I wore the dressiest pants I had because I had no skirts. It took me a while to find some that fit that I could afford and were modest.
The next step was getting rid of all my shorts and tops with more than 2 fingers width at the throat. The tops have been harder than the shorts because of the way most blouses are made today. I brought my nicest pants and a dressy skirt and top for Mass.
I didn't realize how my perceptions of dress were gradually changing until I looked around at the retreat and realized how sloppy the dress of most retreatants was. And I thought of my grandmother's era when no one would have been caught dead dressing like that - even at home.
I guess my next step as I search for practical, washable, affordable, plus size long skirts, will be to make sure that my clothing is not sloppy or ill fitting and looks nice.
I really do wish it wasn't so hard to find nice, modest clothing. And no, I don't have a sewing machine. I also am not an accomplished seamstress. Maybe I will have to learn.
-
MaterLaeta, it is beautiful to see grace at work in a soul. Thank you for your edifying post. I am sure that Our Lady will give you many more special graces for the efforts you have made.
-
I guess my next step as I search for practical, washable, affordable, plus size long skirts, will be to make sure that my clothing is not sloppy or ill fitting and looks nice.
I really do wish it wasn't so hard to find nice, modest clothing. And no, I don't have a sewing machine. I also am not an accomplished seamstress. Maybe I will have to learn.
MaterLaeta, Nice to meet you :wave:. If you haven't tried already, you might look at your local resale/second hand store. There are a lot of women out there you seem to think that shopping is an up and coming new olympic sport and they'e out there training for it. So when they have no more room to store the new stuff, they donate it to charity. You'd be surprised how many new articles of clothing, in all sizes, you'll find at the resale store with the original price tags still attached. If you could borrow a sewing machine, I have a link to a site that shows you how to make a wrap around skirt, step by step. If this would be of help let me know and I'll post it. My problem with sewing is trying to find a store that sells fabric at a reasonable price. Good Luck finding what you need and welcome to Cath Info!
-
miserere, you might find some info on www.savethemales, a site created to fight feminism.
I really like Henry Makow quite a bit.
I would be interested in what some of the Catholic women here think of the current article he has posted about make-up. I think it brings up some really good points.
Post it (or a link) in a new thread and I'm sure you'll get all the opinions you'd like (and more!) :smile:
-
If you haven't tried already, you might look at your local resale/second hand store. There are a lot of women out there you seem to think that shopping is an up and coming new olympic sport and they'e out there training for it. So when they have no more room to store the new stuff, they donate it to charity. You'd be surprised how many new articles of clothing, in all sizes, you'll find at the resale store with the original price tags still attached.
So true, Cheryl! My mind gives them all the benefit of the doubt and says these are gifts that they didn't like. :smirk:
For anyone who's never shopped second-hand before, do know that the stores vary quite a bit, though. Some consignment stores charge nearly the same price as you'd pay for a similar item on sale brand new. They only take clothes that are "in style" though (that can be pro or con depending on how you look at it). Charitable operations take/sell with less scrutany and also sell the items often considerably cheaper. My mom came across a rack a few weeks ago -- "all tops $1 OR 10 for $1 ... Yes, 10 for $1" -- I guess they were overstocked. :smile:
-
practical, washable, affordable, plus size long skirts
I'll admit to never having much luck finding this second hand. :sad:
I get many of my skirts at Catherines(.com). Their normal prices are too much for me, but I watch their emails/snail mail and will get coupons for $10 or $15 off of $25 (among other things). I combine the coupon with what's on sale/clearance and then the price is good if not great. This sometimes means buying off-season, but other times not. I personally only like a fraction of the styles they carry, but at least I know they always have something that is calf length or longer. They'll also ship website purchases to their store for free if you have one near you.
(I just noticed that the title of their clearance page is "Plus Size Cheap Skirts" ... I think they'd like Google to know who they're looking for. :smirk:)
I've occassionally found things at Avenue as well, but they're a "trendier" store so the reliability of finding anything modest, let alone something I actually like, is much more limited.
-
It seems mighty shallow to think that it matters little what we put over our bodies 18 hours of the day.
Everyone knows that a man in a suit feels and acts different from a man in blue jeans and a sweatshirt
This is very true and I believe there are studies to back it up. This is why many businesses have ended "casual Fridays". They found professionalism and productivity went down.
In the same way, what a majority of people wear to Mass on Sunday can have a profound effect on the entire atmosphere of the Mass.
I'm thinking here mainly of my N.O. experience. I've been at N.O. Masses very reverently said by the priest with the congregation very conservatively dressed, women in veils, men in collared shirts, etc. The mood was one of reverence.
Then I've been to N.O. Masses where I knew the priest was personally orthodox and said his part reverently but the congregation was wearing a complete mish-mash of whatever (jerseys, t-shirts, baggy jeans, flip-flops, etc.) and it completely brought the atmosphere down to one of almost disrespect.
I know one conservative TV personality who has his family assist at a TLM on Sundays solely for the clothing issue. He is not a Traditionalist but sadly the TLM is the only Mass in his area where he can take his children and not see immodestly dressed women.
If it is one pet peeve I have, it is the fact that some Catholics don't have the common courtesy and basic respect to not dress like bums for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I'm not saying you have to wear a tux and wedding dress every Sunday. I just mean a BASIC level of respect where you put SOME effort into looking just a LITTLE bit respectable and presentable for Our Lord.
Anyway, I digress....
-
If it is one pet peeve I have, it is the fact that some Catholics don't have the common courtesy and basic respect to not dress like bums for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I'm not saying you have to wear a tux and wedding dress every Sunday. I just mean a BASIC level of respect where you put SOME effort into looking just a LITTLE bit respectable and presentable for Our Lord.
Comfort - it is all about comfort. I can excuse the young people but not the ones my age and older who do know better. Disgraceful all around!
-
If it is one pet peeve I have, it is the fact that some Catholics don't have the common courtesy and basic respect to not dress like bums for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I'm not saying you have to wear a tux and wedding dress every Sunday. I just mean a BASIC level of respect where you put SOME effort into looking just a LITTLE bit respectable and presentable for Our Lord.
Comfort - it is all about comfort. I can excuse the young people but not the ones my age and older who do know better. Disgraceful all around!
My in-laws are N.O. sorry to say, but what can one do when one is 89 and the other 90? When they go to church, my mother-in-law always wears a dress and my father-in-law a suit and tie. One time their cookie and kool-aid guy, made a comment about how they dressed and asked if they had always dressed like this to go to church? Since there are young ones here, I'll leave you to figure out my father-in-law's response. The real kicker is that my father-in-law converted to the N.O. when he was in his 70's. My in-laws always complain about the way the younger generation dresses to go to church.
-
If it is one pet peeve I have, it is the fact that some Catholics don't have the common courtesy and basic respect to not dress like bums for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I'm not saying you have to wear a tux and wedding dress every Sunday. I just mean a BASIC level of respect where you put SOME effort into looking just a LITTLE bit respectable and presentable for Our Lord.
Comfort - it is all about comfort. I can excuse the young people but not the ones my age and older who do know better. Disgraceful all around!
Betcha they've never heard the words, one's Sunday best. :ape:
-
If you haven't tried already, you might look at your local resale/second hand store. There are a lot of women out there you seem to think that shopping is an up and coming new olympic sport and they'e out there training for it. So when they have no more room to store the new stuff, they donate it to charity. You'd be surprised how many new articles of clothing, in all sizes, you'll find at the resale store with the original price tags still attached.
So true, Cheryl! My mind gives them all the benefit of the doubt and says these are gifts that they didn't like. :smirk:
:
Exactly Mater, they just haven't re-gifted the items yet.
Resale shopping does have many variables to the equation. For instance, if you live in a rural area, there won't be too many of them. Cuts way down on choices. The area I live in has many choices, so there are a lot of items to choose from. I would have to say, 90% of my wardrobe comes from second hand stores. 100% of my husband's t-shirts he wears to work come from the resale store. Most of my dishes, kitchen utensils, and cookware also are slightly used or new. A good book to get from the library that might help those new to second hand and garage sale shopping is, The Complete Tightwad Gazette. A quick look at Amazon will give you a good synopsis of the book. It is somewhat dated, but for anyone wishing to become a hardcore frugalite, it's an absolute must. I have found websites dedicated to shopping second hand for sweaters and wool items in order to get yarn for knitting or crocheting. Plus sites on how to unravel those sweaters. I've been shopping resale stores for so long, I can't even go to Walmart without shaking my head, and tut, tutting at how expensive the clothes are. :roll-laugh1:
-
Of course wear a skirt, dress etc to TLM
Now look you lot, come up to Canada on a deep snowy and windy day and I can tell you I look like a polar bear. First you put on the long johns, then the pants and sweaters, then the jacket and scarf and hat with mitts. That's just to go and get a bag of milk. Then you get to your front door and discover you need to go to the bathroom. That if your lucky, takes time and then you go through the same dressing all over again.
Makeup, c'mon at my age I can't even iron out the wrinkles!
-
Of course wear a skirt, dress etc to TLM
Now look you lot, come up to Canada on a deep snowy and windy day and I can tell you I look like a polar bear. First you put on the long johns, then the pants and sweaters, then the jacket and scarf and hat with mitts. That's just to go and get a bag of milk. Then you get to your front door and discover you need to go to the bathroom. That if your lucky, takes time and then you go through the same dressing all over again.
Makeup, c'mon at my age I can't even iron out the wrinkles!
No problem dear, I'll stop by pick you up and we'll go to my favorite winter vacation spot, Michigan's Upper Peninsular. You'll be one of the few people I know who'll be dressed for it! LOL! Or maybe we can spend some time in the only place in Canada that's south of the United States.
-
North Michigan, yikes that's like the Artic.
Cheryl, don't forget the address. I'm waiting for the next dog sled going your way, with Nelson Eddy singing Rose Marie.
-
North Michigan, yikes that's like the Artic.
Cheryl, don't forget the address. I'm waiting for the next dog sled going your way, with Nelson Eddy singing Rose Marie.
Don't threaten me dearie! My mother used to watch those movies all the time when I was a child, and she's not even Canadian. My vision of Hell is one Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald movie after another, over and over and over...
You're a hard woman, first wet noodle treatments, then Nelson Eddy singing Rose Marie, geez. If you take requests, I'm in need of aero bars, coffee crisps and smarties, I'm all set on Red Rose tea. I'm just kidding, I'll be popping over to Sarnia soon, I'm almost out of Jameson's, something you can't be without when you're married to an Irish Catholic. :roll-laugh1: You have to love a well stocked LCBO!