Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Women’s pants  (Read 3733 times)

1 Member and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline HeidtXtreme

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 74
  • Reputation: +33/-38
  • Gender: Male
  • The raddest trad lad earth ever had
Re: Women’s pants
« Reply #45 on: July 22, 2025, 09:36:48 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Thank you everyone for the responses.

    What about Eastern Asian cultures? Did the Church ever say anything about about ku pants or monpei pants for women? Did the Church condemn all pants for all cultures, especially pagan cultures? From what I could tell they were mostly used for gardening and yard work. Does the Church allow differences for different cultures? I know for instance that the kilt is worn my men in traditional Scottish culture.

    Offline St Giles

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1507
    • Reputation: +797/-192
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Women’s pants
    « Reply #46 on: July 22, 2025, 10:17:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Douay-Rheims Bible

    A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel : for he that doeth these things is abominable before God.

    Deuteronomy 22:5
    "Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect."
    "Seek first the kingdom of Heaven..."
    "Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment"


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12317
    • Reputation: +7808/-2410
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Women’s pants
    « Reply #47 on: July 22, 2025, 10:56:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I think that since women wearing pants has been an acceptable custom since the 1970s (actually in 1923 the laws were changed so women could wear pants in public), that most women do not think of themselves as purposefully dressing male.  
    You keep talking about "acceptable customs".  Acceptable to whom?  Acceptable to God?  Acceptable to the Church?

    Contraception was acceptable in the 70s.  So were psychedelic drugs.  So was satanic rock-n-roll.  So was new-ageism, V2 and the new mass.

    Just because someone "doesn't think" they are doing wrong, doesn't mean they are innocent.  There's such a thing as a poorly formed conscience, by way of a sinful lifestyle or of a failure to learn your religious duties.  Killing one's conscience is a real thing; happens all the time.  You don't have to KNOW you're doing wrong to actually sin.

    Every little girl naturally grows up and wants to wear dresses and make-believe she is a princess, or a fairy, or some other character where women's dress is necessary.  No little girl grows up and asks to wear pants or shorts.  Nature is God-given.  Nurture destroys girls' natural instincts.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12317
    • Reputation: +7808/-2410
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Women’s pants
    « Reply #48 on: July 22, 2025, 11:00:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Pax are earrings considered woman's apparel? What about other adornments?
     There a lot of men who wear jewelry. Etc.
    Kings have often worn "masculine jewelry" such as rings, bracelets, crowns, even necklaces.  Never heard of a normal man wearing earrings.  :laugh1:

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12317
    • Reputation: +7808/-2410
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Women’s pants
    « Reply #49 on: July 22, 2025, 11:02:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thank you everyone for the responses.

    What about Eastern Asian cultures? Did the Church ever say anything about about ku pants or monpei pants for women? Did the Church condemn all pants for all cultures, especially pagan cultures? From what I could tell they were mostly used for gardening and yard work. Does the Church allow differences for different cultures? I know for instance that the kilt is worn my men in traditional Scottish culture.
    Most of the eastern asian cultures aren't catholic, so even if the Church said something, they wouldn't listen.


    Offline SimpleMan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5003
    • Reputation: +1943/-244
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Women’s pants
    « Reply #50 on: July 22, 2025, 11:32:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I know for instance that the kilt is worn by men in traditional Scottish culture.

    I was wondering about that myself in this discussion.

    What are we to think of kilts?

    Offline Miseremini

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4546
    • Reputation: +3615/-299
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Women’s pants
    « Reply #51 on: July 22, 2025, 11:34:05 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  •  Killing one's conscience is a real thing; happens all the time.  You don't have to KNOW you're doing wrong to actually sin.
    This is where so very many people get it wrong.
    Even here on CI we continually read, "It has to be wrong, you have to know it's wrong, and you have to do it anyway" (Ladislau's famous line).  Quite the opposite.
    That was never taught before Vat II, after all, the devil is a liar, and he deceives us, so of course we're not going to think some action, thought or word is wrong/sinful.
    So many sins are committed by people who mistakenly think their good intentions make their actions pleasing to God when in fact they've been terribly deceived.
    "Let God arise, and let His enemies be scattered: and them that hate Him flee from before His Holy Face"  Psalm 67:2[/b]


    Offline AnthonyPadua

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2372
    • Reputation: +1213/-236
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Women’s pants
    « Reply #52 on: July 22, 2025, 11:35:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Kings have often worn "masculine jewelry" such as rings, bracelets, crowns, even necklaces.  Never heard of a normal man wearing earrings.  :laugh1:
    It's quite common for secular men to have earrings nowdays, especially the younger men. Studs, sleepers, stretchers etc.


    Offline Geremia

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4845
    • Reputation: +1586/-362
    • Gender: Male
      • St. Isidore e-book library
    The “Vatican Guidelines”
    « Reply #53 on: July 22, 2025, 11:40:00 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Are there any direct declarations from a Pope or the Holy See that says explicitly that women should not wear pants? I have a hard time refuting the pro-pants argument that Rome never mentioned it specifically. I know Padre Pio and Cardinal Siri’s rules, but I was looking for a statement with binding authority on the matter.
    This is the closest I've seen:
    Quote
    The “Vatican Guidelines”

    “We recall that a dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers’ breadth under the pit of the throat, which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows, and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent material are improper …”

    —Issued by the Cardinal Vicar (Basilio Pompili) of Pope Pius XI in Rome, September 24, 1928.
    as quoted in Appendix 2 of Colleen Hammond, Dressing with Dignity
    St. Isidore e-book library: https://isidore.co

    Offline AnthonyPadua

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2372
    • Reputation: +1213/-236
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Women’s pants
    « Reply #54 on: July 22, 2025, 11:51:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is where so very many people get it wrong.
    Even here on CI we continually read, "It has to be wrong, you have to know it's wrong, and you have to do it anyway" (Ladislau's famous line).  Quite the opposite.
    That was never taught before Vat II, after all, the devil is a liar, and he deceives us, so of course we're not going to think some action, thought or word is wrong/sinful.
    So many sins are committed by people who mistakenly think their good intentions make their actions pleasing to God when in fact they've been terribly deceived.

    Interesting even the v2 catechism says "presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act,", yet i've had trads and trad priest say you have to KNOW something is a sin for it to be a sin.
    Quote
    1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

    1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

    1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

    1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

    1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."134


    Offline Mr G

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2407
    • Reputation: +1577/-94
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Women’s pants
    « Reply #55 on: July 23, 2025, 07:22:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Bishop Williamson's Letters: Women's trousers are an assault upon woman's womanhood

    Dear Friends and Benefactors:

    Summer's end may not seem to be the cleverest moment to choose to write about women's dress. Surely the arrival rather than the departure of the warm weather would be the time to inveigh against immodest clothing. However, several ladies happen to have raised with me this summer the question of women wearing trousers or shorts (pants), and the problem is broader and deeper than just immodesty, grave though immodesty is.
    For instance Bishop de Castro Mayer used to say that trousers on a woman are worse than a mini-skirt, because while the mini-skirt is sensual and attacks the senses, the trousers are ideological and attack the mind. For indeed women's trousers, as worn today, short or long, modest or immodest, tight or loose, open or disguised (like the "culottes”), are an assault upon woman's womanhood and so they represent a deep-lying revolt against the order willed by God. This may be least true of the long "culottes", trousers most closely resembling a skirt, and at best mistakable for a skirt, but insofar as "culottes" establish the principle of dividing woman's outward apparel from the waist down, they merely disguise the grave disorder. What disorder? ("Excellency, this time really you have flipped your lid!").
    In the beginning, God created man and woman, both human but quite different, firstly man, secondly woman (Genesis I, 27; II, 22); woman to be man's help-mate like unto himself (Gem. II, 18), woman for man, not man for woman (I Cor. XI, 9), for "the man is not of the woman but the woman is of the man" (I Cor. XI, 8). Thus even before original sin happened, God ordered between man and woman distinction, inequality, and the headship of man over woman for purposes of living in society and in the family upon this earth.
    Original sin, whereby Eve made Adam sin and not the other way round (I Tim II 14), entailed Eve's being punished, amongst other things, by the turning of her natural and painless subordination to Adam into a punishing domination of his over her, for she had shown by seducing him that she needed to be controlled... "thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee" (Genesis III, 16). Thenceforth with the transmission of original sin to all children of Adam passes to all daughters of Adam (except, of course, the Blessed Virgin Mary) this punitive subordination.
    As with all problems of sin, the only true solution is the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ. For instance in a Catholic marriage the painful control of man over woman, evident in all non-Christian cultures and re-emerging in our own anti-Christian culture, becomes by supernatural grace more and more that subordination of woman to man which is in accordance with their nature and which is profitable to both, which Eve had before she and Adam fell.
    But away with Eden by grace! The modern world will have none of Jesus Christ's solutions to Adam's and Eve's problems. Making idols of liberty and equality, to refuse any inequality or subordination of woman to man, it will deny any distinction between them, it denies of course any order of God in His creation, any need for Redemption, and it will deny if necessary God's very existence. Today's feminism is intimately connected to witchcraft and satanism.
    These considerations have taken us a long way from the question of women's trousers, and of course not every woman putting on a pair of shorts is consciously thinking of defying God or of defying her menfolk. She is, however, conscious of something. She is clearly aware that divided shorts are not like an undivided skirt, and the difference is that abandoning the skirt gives her a vague feeling — surely of unease, or emancipation, or both .... What is that feeling based on?
    Clothing divided for the legs obviously liberates the mobile lower half of the body for a number of activities for which clothing undivided like a skirt is relatively cuмbersome. Adam then having to earn his family's bread by the sweat of all kinds of activities outside the home, it is entirely normal for the man to wear trousers, and if a girl gets it into her head to join him in these activities, obviously trousers likewise emancipate her to do so. Shorts are the outward and visible sign of her, liberation from the restricted range of homemaking activities.
    However, she is uneasy because trousers are not the natural wear of a woman. Howsoever it be with other species, in the human species the female is designed to attract the eye of the male much more than the reverse — compare the number of male and of female beauty magazines on the market. Now original sin wounds human nature with concupiscence (unlawful desire) particularly in the senses of sight, touch and imagination. It follows for questions of clothing that what might rouse concupiscence needs more to be disguised in woman from man’s eye than in man from woman’s eye. Hence as trousers benefit the activity of the man, so skirts disguisingly loose befit the dignity and honour of the woman. Hence while donning his emancipatory trousers, she feels uneasy – at least until her conscience is dulled – as she is moving away from her identity and role and dignity as a woman. In her conscience is resounding the voice of the Lord her God pronouncing in the Mosaic Law: “A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God" (Deut. XXII, 5). And trousers are normally man's apparel, for reasons given above.
    Of course if one denies the original sin which inflamed man's concupiscence (Gen. III, 7) and sharpened woman's subordination (Gen. III, 16), women's trousers are not so unreasonable, but see all around you the absurd consequences of denying original sin ! — sweet Polyanna goes to the office dressed fit to inflame a stone, but woe unto the poor male colleague in the office who fails to react like a stone, because with recent laws (in the U.S.A.) she will attack him in court! Insanity! Places of work will soon have to extract in advance from women sworn declarations whether they do, or do not, want to have advances made to them! 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.
    Contrast the reflective good sense of an American grandmother who said to me this summer when she was on retreat here in Winona that, looking back on her Californian youth, she could see she had often been induced to wear trousers, and now she regretted it — she could see now that each time her womanliness had been diminished. As G.K. Chesterton said, there is nothing so unfeminine as feminism. Women's trousers are a vital part, maybe the crucial break-through, of feminism.
    As for the true womanliness of woman, its importance cannot be exaggerated. It all turns on women being essentially designed by God for motherhood; for the bringing of children into this world, and for their rearing; for the giving of life, warmth, love, nursing, and nourishment, everything represented by mother's milk. For this, men are not designed, of it they are intrinsically incapable yet upon it they are wholly dependent if they are to become human, as opposed to inhuman, beings. In a valuable book, "The Flight from Woman", a cultivated Jєωιѕн psychiatrist, Karl Stern, tells how he could discern in countless ills of the big city patients coming through his Toronto practice after World War II a pattern of womanlessness with which he was familiar from the works of famous modern writers such as Goethe, Descartes, Tolstoy, Ibsen — not a lack of women, but a lack of truly womanly women, because modern men and women alike are trampling upon the womanly qualities and virtues. Shakespeare distilled this spirit in Lady Macbeth, proto-feminist and satanist:­
    "Come you spirits
    That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,
    And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full
    Of direst cruelty.... Come to my woman's breast
    And take my milk for gall, you murdering ministers..." (Act I, Sc. V).
    Heaven help us! The womanliness of our women is being rooted out and the result is a way of life doomed to self-destruction, doomed to abort.
    Girls, be mothers, and in order to be mothers, let not wild horses drag you into shorts or trousers. When activities are proposed to you requiring trousers, if it is something your great-grandmother did, then find a way of doing it, like her, in a skirt. And if your great-grandmother did not do it, then forget it! Her generation created your country, your generation is destroying it. Of course not all women who wear trousers abort the fruit of their womb, but all help to create the abortive society. Old-fashioned is good, modern is suicidal. You wish to stop abortion? Do it by example. Never wear trousers or shorts. Bishop de Castro Mayer was right.
    Enclosed is a flyer of tapes made by Bernard Janzen, a Canadian friend of the Seminary with whom I have made a dozen tapes myself. The Seminary would surely not endorse every statement on each of the tapes. For instance, Malachi Martin's latest book, "The Keys of this Blood", showed him to be deeply divided between the conservative and the Traditional analyses of the crisis of the Church, two analyses which one might love to reconcile but which are irreconcilable. This reconciling of irreconcilables makes his tapes very popular, and they might greatly help someone struggling out of the Novus Ordo, but they might equally confuse someone making the last part of the climb up to Tradition. Be careful to whom you might give them. Similarly Michael Davies is conservative rather than Traditional, he is certainly not 100% behind the Society of St. Pius X, but like Malachi Martin he can reach many a listener closed to the Society, at least for now. With that proviso, these tapes can surely be recommended. Please order direct from Canada and not from the Seminary.
    A new school-year opens in a few days' time. Pray for seminarian Michael Rios from Texas who on August 22, returning home from Mass, had a terrible accident which killed his mother and a friend in his car, crushed beneath a truck and which has left him paralyzed at least from the waist down. God’s way are mysterious, but in Michael’s place He does seem to be sending us some more fine young men to try their vocations at the end of this month. On their behalf, thank you always for your support, which please maintain, and for which may Our Lord continue to repay you.
    Most sincerely yours in his Sacred Heart,
    +Richard Williamson



    Offline Mr G

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2407
    • Reputation: +1577/-94
    • Gender: Male

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12317
    • Reputation: +7808/-2410
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Women’s pants
    « Reply #57 on: July 23, 2025, 07:36:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's quite common for secular men to have earrings nowdays, especially the younger men. Studs, sleepers, stretchers etc.
    Yeah, this was a fad in the 80s/90s too (usually for those who lived an "alternate" lifestyle or those who were just eccentric/creative/enjoyed attention).  Still don't think it's normal for men to wear earrings.  It may be "common" now (i.e. 10-15% of young men) but it's still not (and never has been) the norm.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12317
    • Reputation: +7808/-2410
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Women’s pants
    « Reply #58 on: July 23, 2025, 08:03:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Interesting even the v2 catechism says "presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act,", yet i've had trads and trad priest say you have to KNOW something is a sin for it to be a sin.
    Yes everyone says this and they are wrong.  The 3 conditions have to do with guilt/culpability for sin, not whether the action is a sin itself. 

    I think that most of Trad's errors on this topic stem from their errors on BOD/invincible ignorance.  If people can avoid hell and be saved due to ignorance, then it's logical to assume that you can't be guilty of sin if "you didn't know".  Hence, they take the "3 conditions" out of context and apply it incorrectly to personal sin.

    Quote
    1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man.
    No one can plead ignorance for the moral law.

    Example 1:  A catholic who grew up with the Faith, stops practicing at age 18.  Years later, they begin to co-habitate with their girl/boyfriend.  At age 30, they decide to come back to Church and prepare for confession.  This person cannot "claim ignorance" for sins of co-habitating, because the moral law (i.e. natural law) is written on all men's hearts.  Everyone knows it's wrong to "pretend" you're married, when you're not.  If this person had any ignorance on the topic, it was culpable ignorance due to laziness and they are guilty of this additional sin.

    Example 2:  Same as above, but the person realizes they must confess years and years of not following Church law on fasting, abstinence, etc.  Since this is not part of the moral law, but Church law, the person's "guilt" for ignoring fasting rules may be less (only God knows).  Now while this person had the DUTY to know Church law, as a baptized catholic, if their parent/school upbringing was poor, God takes this into consideration. 

    They are still guilty for not researching Church laws and for not practicing the faith, but they aren't as guilty as someone who knew that Good Friday was a fast day and said "I don't care."  The conclusion is, only God knows.  This person STILL HAS TO CONFESS such sins.  It's just that their guilt may be less.  BUT THEY STILL COMMITTED GRAVE SINS and can only get forgiveness through confession.

    The person can't say "Well I didn't know, so I don't have to confess it."  No, that's never been the Church's mindset.  And if you have to confess things which you didn't know were wrong, this proves that the sin was still committed.  The action (i.e. sin) was still wrong, even if one may not be guilty. 

    As Christ prayed on the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."  Obviously, those who put Christ to death still committed the most horrendous sin in history.  Can we say they are guilt-less, because "they didn't know"?  If they were guilt-less, then why does Christ ask the Father for forgiveness?  I thought "invincible ignorance" makes one guilt-free?  Obviously, it does not.

    Offline AnthonyPadua

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2372
    • Reputation: +1213/-236
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Women’s pants
    « Reply #59 on: July 23, 2025, 08:44:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Bishop Williamson's Letters: Parishioners write on women's dress and the father's role in the family
    Ah Bishop Williamson in the society, what a dream I've never known. Interesting one of the letters mentions men wearing earrings.