P.s.  I'd wager a lot of money that if you took an anonymous survey of traditional catholic priests, they'd not only say it was psychologically destructive, but they'd also preach against it more if

1) if there weren't larger issues to worry about (i.e. contraception, the deluge of impurity, divorce matters, vatican 2, etc etc etc)

2) if the church was in any way 'united' and not fractured as it is, so that there was a unified teaching on these matters, coming directly from the diocesan Bishop.  NOTE:  The letter of Cardinal Siri is the best (and only) clear, Church teaching we have in the last 40 years and he disapproved.

3) if they had the energy required to deal with the whining, moaning, and emotional childishness that would occur from the female population in response to their sermons.

When a priest of our day (who has only the bare minimum of seminary training and no parish experience or hands-on training from a senior pastor) contradicts a CARDINAL of the Church from the 60s (who had a fully formed, pre-V2 seminary training, with decades of parish experience), then the priest's sermon is WRONG.

Trad Cardinal > trad priest.  Every time.  And twice on sundays.

The mentality regarding women in pants is simple, as explained by Cardinal Siri.  You said you read the article.  You must've skipped sections 2-5.  Here's a summary:

1.  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

a.  So, wearing pants isn't a mortal sin.  Could it be a venial sin?  That part is left unanswered.  Certainly, he left it open.

b.  Notice he says "when it comes to covering the female body" which is where he is distinguishing between the issue of modesty and fashion/psychology, which are separate issues.

c.  From a MODESTY standpoint, wearing pants isn't MORTALLY sinful.  From a FASHION/Psychology standpoint, though, he says it's wrong.  See more below:

2.  However, it is a different aspect of women's wearing of men's trousers which seems to us the gravest.
A.  MALE DRESS CHANGES THE PSYCHOLOGY OF WOMAN.
The perversion of her psychology is clear to be seen.
a.  He calls it a "grave" situation and a "perversion of psychology".

b.  Notice how he used the word 'grave' in sections 1 and 2, to show the connection between modesty and psychology.  

B.  MALE DRESS TENDS TO VITIATE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN.
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. 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,
a. in other words, when women dress like men, shame is decreased which leads to impurity.

C. MALE DRESS HARMS THE DIGNITY OF THE MOTHER IN HER CHILDREN'S EYES.
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.
a.  Children notice, and are affected by, a mother's actions.

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....To sum up, wherever women wear men's dress, it is to be considered a factor in the long run tearing apart human order.
a.  Women wearing man's dress damages the family, conjugal fidelity, society and human order.  Pretty hard-hitting stuff here.  "Oh, but it's not a mortal sin, so it's ok." (sarcasm alert)

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.

 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.
Wait!  A SENSE OF ALARM over what?!  I don't understand, your Excellency.  I thought it wasn't a 'grave offense'?  Why are you giving a grave warning?

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.  
I'm so confused.  Conscious of the problem - what problem?  Action(s) will follow?  Why?

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.
Why is there 'serious alarm' about a 'problem at hand'?  You said it wasn't a grave offense, so it's ok, right?  What's this about 'strictly limiting' women dressing like men?  

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.
This is a matter of the confessional??  Priests have to 'take a line' on this issue?  So it's not 'automatically' a grave fault, but it COULD BE?  Or it could be a venial sin?  

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.
So a woman who wears pants is a 'monstrosity'?  

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.
"Evil crept in"?  Women in pants is evil?  I thought it wasn't a mortal sin?  


Your excellency, I stopped reading after section 1.  I'm so confused.
Signed,
21st century traditional catholic woman




 

When a priest of our day (who has only the bare minimum of seminary training and no parish experience or hands-on training from a senior pastor) contradicts a CARDINAL of the Church from the 60s (who had a fully formed, pre-V2 seminary training, with decades of parish experience), then the priest's sermon is WRONG.

Trad Cardinal > trad priest.  Every time.  And twice on sundays.

The mentality regarding women in pants is simple, as explained by Cardinal Siri.  You said you read the article.  You must've skipped sections 2-5.  Here's a summary:

1.  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

a.  So, wearing pants isn't a mortal sin.  Could it be a venial sin?  That part is left unanswered.  Certainly, he left it open.

b.  Notice he says "when it comes to covering the female body" which is where he is distinguishing between the issue of modesty and fashion/psychology, which are separate issues.

c.  From a MODESTY standpoint, wearing pants isn't MORTALLY sinful.  From a FASHION/Psychology standpoint, though, he says it's wrong.  See more below:

2.  However, it is a different aspect of women's wearing of men's trousers which seems to us the gravest.
A.  MALE DRESS CHANGES THE PSYCHOLOGY OF WOMAN.
The perversion of her psychology is clear to be seen.
a.  He calls it a "grave" situation and a "perversion of psychology".

b.  Notice how he used the word 'grave' in sections 1 and 2, to show the connection between modesty and psychology.  

B.  MALE DRESS TENDS TO VITIATE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN.
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. 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,
a. in other words, when women dress like men, shame is decreased which leads to impurity.

C. MALE DRESS HARMS THE DIGNITY OF THE MOTHER IN HER CHILDREN'S EYES.
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.
a.  Children notice, and are affected by, a mother's actions.

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....To sum up, wherever women wear men's dress, it is to be considered a factor in the long run tearing apart human order.
a.  Women wearing man's dress damages the family, conjugal fidelity, society and human order.  Pretty hard-hitting stuff here.  "Oh, but it's not a mortal sin, so it's ok." (sarcasm alert)

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.

 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.
Wait!  A SENSE OF ALARM over what?!  I don't understand, your Excellency.  I thought it wasn't a 'grave offense'?  Why are you giving a grave warning?

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.  
I'm so confused.  Conscious of the problem - what problem?  Action(s) will follow?  Why?

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.
Why is there 'serious alarm' about a 'problem at hand'?  You said it wasn't a grave offense, so it's ok, right?  What's this about 'strictly limiting' women dressing like men?  

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.
This is a matter of the confessional??  Priests have to 'take a line' on this issue?  So it's not 'automatically' a grave fault, but it COULD BE?  Or it could be a venial sin?  

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.
So a woman who wears pants is a 'monstrosity'?  

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.
"Evil crept in"?  Women in pants is evil?  I thought it wasn't a mortal sin?  


Your excellency, I stopped reading after section 1.  I'm so confused.
Signed,
21st century traditional catholic woman


 

You are making a lot of assumptions here and you know what assumptions do...

P.s.  I'd wager a lot of money that if you took an anonymous survey of traditional catholic priests, they'd not only say it was psychologically destructive, but they'd also preach against it more

3) if they had the energy required to deal with the whining, moaning, and emotional childishness that would occur from the female population in response to their sermons.

Michael Matt once wrote an article defending the idea that women needed to work harder at dressing better for Sunday Mass and consistently wearing makeup, etc. and the screeching and whining and gnashing of teeth from the women in response was horrendous.

Gabriela's objections to pants are an extension of that chorus.

Long dresses are the best because they're comfortable, modest and also professional. One of my favorite dresses has pockets and a hoodie attached, like a red riding hood dress.

There is much more to modesty than clothing:
Ecclus. 19:26-27:

[26] A man is known by his look, and a wise man, when thou meetest him, is known by his countenance.
[27] The attire of the body, and the laughter of the teeth, and the gait of the man, shew what he is.

What about Scottish kilts?

Kilts were mentioned earlier in this thread.