The Church is not a sect, right reason prevails when certain situations arise.

I wrote an essay on this topic several years ago on my personal blog:

Quote

Women & girls should only wear skirts and/or dresses.

That women (and hence, girls) should only wear women's clothing is plainly taught in Sacred Scripture:

"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)

Of course, naysayers of this opinion will say that the Bible does not teach that women can only wear skirts/dresses.  They will say, "Look at Mary and Joseph! Joseph did not wear pants.  Or, look at Chinese women, they wear pants or pant-like clothes."  In using these arguments, they are ignoring a fundamental principle:

Women's clothing does not always consist of dresses and/or skirts, but dresses and/or skirts are always women's clothing.

It is simple question-begging to say that women should only wear skirts/dresses, for if pants/trousers were acceptable for women to wear, why did women, for centuries, not wear those types of clothing?  To say that it was "only cultural" is to ignore the arguments of the culture, which, for centuries, cited Deuteronomy 22:5 as the reason why women/girls could only wear skirts. A small minority of little girls and young ladies, for centuries, would on occasion don pants, and when discovered, their Moms & Grandmothers would sit them down, open up their Bibles, and read Deuteronomy 22:5, which they would cite as the reason why they needed to, immediately, change their clothes.  As a matter of fact, historically, it was rather unthinkable until the early 1900s for a woman to be in pants or trousers, and even then, such was the rare exception.  Prior to 1900, such overt cross-dressing was very rare (the early advocates of women's suffrage were heckled in public for wearing pants, forcing almost all of them to return to skirts), and almost unheard of prior to 1800.  Of course, there were some exceptions, as I will discuss further on.

Roman Catholic canon law and Magisterial teaching took Deuteronomy 22:5 literally.  The Synod of Gangra, called by Constantine, condemned the wearing of men's clothing by women:

Canon XIII:  If any woman, under pretence of asceticism, shall change her apparel and, instead of a woman’s accustomed clothing, shall put on that of a man, let her be anathema.

Likewise, Saint Thomas teaches,

"As stated in the foregoing Article, outward apparel should be consistent with the estate of the person, according to the general custom. Hence it is in itself sinful for a woman to wear man's clothes, or vice versa; especially since this may be a cause of sensuous pleasure; and it is expressly forbidden in the Law (Deuteronomy 22) because the Gentiles used to practice this change of attire for the purpose of idolatrous superstition. Nevertheless this may be done sometimes without sin on account of some necessity, either in order to hide oneself from enemies, or through lack of other clothes, or for some similar motive." (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.169, a.2, ad 3)

Of course, some will say that pants are "women's clothing," which at best would be an argument that says that objective moral values should capitulate to modern secularized "values."  However, this "argument" ignores the evidence.  Even in 2011, skirts/dresses are still "women's clothing."  California Code - Section 12947.5 states the following:

"(a)It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to refuse to permit an employee to wear pants on account of the sex of the employee."

Of course, this is question begging.  If skirts/dresses were not "women's clothing," why would some employers be forcing women to wear them, and what motivation would there be for the California legislature to grant women legal protection to wear pants?

Likewise, AB 196 provides legal protection to transgender men who wish to wear skirts/dresses, requiring that "that each employee be permitted to dress in accordance with the employee’s gender identity."

So, in conclusion, the California Code of Law provides legal protection to women who do not wish to wear dresses and/or skirts as well as legal protection to men who do wish to wear dresses and/or skirts.

Finally, some will appeal to Pope Nicholas I, who wrote to King Boris I of Bulgaria: "Whether you or your women wear or do not wear trousers neither impedes your salvation nor leads to any increase of your virtue" (sive vos, sive feminae vestrae, sive deponatis, sive induatis femoralia, nec saluti officit, nec ad virtutum vestrarum proficit incrementum - Patrologia Latina, CXIX, 1002).

Pope Nicholas was, however, addressing Bulgar women and not other Catholic women. If you are Chinese, then, yes, certainly, you are absolutely free to dress according to your own culture, which is what Saint Thomas taught.  However, as Cardinal Siri noted in his letter Men's Dress Worn By Women, in Western culture women have, historically, worn skirts/dresses and men have worn pants/trousers, which has been the custom for centuries.  To say that modernistic secularism can change this immutable truth is to say that modernistic secularism can change other immutable truths of natural and divine law, which is both heretical and absurd.

To say that women should wear pants/shorts is also to ignore what the Blessed Virgin Mary revealed at Fatima when She stated, "Certain styles and fashions are being introduced which gravely offend My Divine Son."

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/women-girls-should-only-wear-skirts.html

Personally I'm not a big fan of kilts either.

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Ladislaus

Personally I'm not a big fan of kilts either.

For men or women?

It's kilts on kangaroos that drive me crazy.