Well ,

I finally finished up to here!! And, sad to say, on an issue where we don 't
have to question or attack Bps. Williamson,Fellay, Frs Pfeiffer, Rostand or others , NO ONE answered the lady's apparently sincere question-- in some fifteen pages of posts!!
  This is where Catholics, especially trads, should shine in their love and patience and charity for
fellow sojourners. Instead of condemnation and criticism, answer and explain the question. Parents For Truth and untitled came closest, with sincere compassion and explanation.

The lady is in the military. I don't want her in the military; you don't want her in the military. But, SHE'S IN THE MILITARY! We presume she's not in the nurses corps. Do we want her crawling through mazes in front of your nephews, jumping from helicopters obove your Dads, climbing over barriers before your cousins-- in a dress???
     Just because it's morally wrong. ( an abomination I believe its called) , for a male to wear the female undergarments-- you cannot equate that with a female trying to dress modestly when performing a job (which only men historically did) that requires her to potentially expose large areas of her body. Do we not want her covered or not???
   I believe that, PFT's excellent  post notwithstanding, that Bishop Williamson even allowed in one discussion that "modest" ( eg., not tight or tapered or form fitting) may be preferable for a woman to wear than an immodest skirt, dress, or blouse.
   I'd be willing to guess, that Padre Pio's reaction with regard to women penitents was largely a result of his reading their souls, and their intentions. Of course, in many instances, their interior intentions were manifested in outward dress. I think He saw inside first, though.

Calm down Sean and make a good confession.   I understand your name calling and anxiety are due to your frustration. In this thread you've.called me many names and even made assumptions.about the way my wife and daughters may dress and you don't.even know them. Ive not said one uncharitable thing about you or any false accusations about the woman in your family. I just pointed out ghat Holy Mother. Church has never condemned woman for wearing pants. What it condemns is immodest dress, period!  Not all pants are immodest.

Human nature requires we have custody of our minds and eyes. A person can have lustful thoughts no matter what a person wears. Heck, there doesn't even need to be a person in the room to have such thoughts. As I said before, if a man has such horrible thoughts simply because a woman walks buy wearing MODEST, LADY'S SLACKS than he has other issues that need to be addressed other than a woman wearing pants.

That is all.

Calm down Sean and make a good confession.   I understand your name calling and anxiety are due to your frustration. In this thread you've.called me many names and even made assumptions.about the way my wife and daughters may dress and you don't.even know them. Ive not said one uncharitable thing about you or any false accusations about the woman in your family. I just pointed out ghat Holy Mother. Church has never condemned woman for wearing pants. What it condemns is immodest dress, period!  Not all pants are immodest.

Human nature requires we have custody of our minds and eyes. A person can have lustful thoughts no matter what a person wears. Heck, there doesn't even need to be a person in the room to have such thoughts. As I said before, if a man has such horrible thoughts simply because a woman walks buy wearing MODEST, LADY'S SLACKS than he has other issues that need to be addressed other than a woman wearing pants.

That is all.

Thank you for confirming and validating my suspicions regarding your motives for flaunting the Church;s moral teachings on women wearing manly, immodest, and masculine attire.

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Ekim

Modest slacks indicate a modest woman.

Therefore, modest bras and dresses indicate a modest and masculine man?

Um, Sean, this is probably the worst argument I have ever heard against slacks.

Padre Pio himself wore a modest dress for men. What do you think a cassock is? Or a religious habit? It's a modest dress for men who have been set apart from the rest of the community for service to God.

There are also modest skirts for men. In fact, I just came back from a Scottish Highland Festival where most of the men wore kilts or tartans. (Along with the traditional manly little purse called a sporran - which is Gaelic for purse.) Several of these men were  active or retired military, police, and firefighters. If you have any questions about their modesty or their masculinity, you are welcome to come up next year and ask them.

Don't worry. Being real men they possess discipline and self-control when it comes to exercising their strength. So they won't punch you in the nose. They may, however, laugh at you.

This is a good point, and this is why I think that people have been too hard on Ekim.
people are acting as if western anglo saxon culture was the culture of the church in the latin rite part of the church, but as this post points out, in Ireland and Scotland and other Celtic areas there exists the Kilt, but it has dissapeared from mainstream use hundreds of years ago thanks to a war of cultural extermination by the english. English culture has conquered the world, and it is this culture that Sean johnson and the cardinals and Padre pio are defending, not the teaching of the scriptures. When Deuteronomy says not to wear the clothing of the opposite sex, you must take into account that before the english conquered Ireland and Scotland, the clothing for men was the Kilt and not the trouser. How then can you say that the church condemns men for wearing womens attire when that is just your opinion, when in fact in these countries it was the normal attire for men.

You dont seem to take into account cultural differences. You think this anglo saxon heritage is the universal standard of morality and clothing for all to adhere to.

Ekim has made a good argument imo, you can down thumb me if you like but it wont change that fact, because I see his point. BTW what about in other cultures, what about in Africa? Clothing in some tribal area would be very different to this standard of decency that you hold the whole world to.

Why not just admit that you are an anglo saxon cultural supremacist and be proud of it?

Another thing, the skirts that women at the SSPX wear to mass are not exactly the traditional dresses for women. The traditional dress is longer and bulkier, but SSPX mass goers almost think that the mass is the opportuntiy to make a fashion statement, which is no different a notion than the novus ordo. Do not pretend that the SSPX is immune from the corrupting influence of the world.
 :chef:

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Ekim

Modest slacks indicate a modest woman.

Therefore, modest bras and dresses indicate a modest and masculine man?

Um, Sean, this is probably the worst argument I have ever heard against slacks.

Padre Pio himself wore a modest dress for men. What do you think a cassock is? Or a religious habit? It's a modest dress for men who have been set apart from the rest of the community for service to God.

There are also modest skirts for men. In fact, I just came back from a Scottish Highland Festival where most of the men wore kilts or tartans. (Along with the traditional manly little purse called a sporran - which is Gaelic for purse.) Several of these men were  active or retired military, police, and firefighters. If you have any questions about their modesty or their masculinity, you are welcome to come up next year and ask them.

Don't worry. Being real men they possess discipline and self-control when it comes to exercising their strength. So they won't punch you in the nose. They may, however, laugh at you.

From p. 7 of this thread:

Umm....

An example of this teaching is St. Thomas Aquinas’ doctrine:
“Outward apparel should be consistent with the state of the person according to general custom. Hence it is in itself sinful for a woman to wear man’s clothes, or vice-versa; especially since this may be the cause of sensuous pleasure; and it is expressly forbidden in the Law (Deut 22) …. Nevertheless this may be done at times on account of some necessity, either in order to hide oneself from enemies, or through lack of other clothes, or for some other such reason” (Summa Theologiae II, II, question 169, article 2, reply to objection 3).
Similar orientation can be found in any good book on Morals before Vatican II.

Therefore:

1) Was clerical garb "consistent with the state of the person [Padre Pio] according to custom?"  

Obviously yes.

2) Are pants "consistent with the state of woman according to custom?"

Obviously not.

Nice try though.

PS: I notice the person who gave the thumb-down to this post was not able to mount a rebuttal to St. Thomas (Not to mention Deuteronomy, Ecclesiasticus, Cardinal Siri, St. Pio, and by extension Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Ottaviani, and every pre-Vatican II manual on moral and pastoral theology that speaks of the subject).

Bishop de Castro Mayer:

Jacinta Marto, one of the little seers of Fatima, although she was only eleven years old at the time, had a wisdom taught her by the Mother of God.  She merits, therefore, our attention.  Here is what she said with regard to styles of dress:  "Fashions will arise which will greatly offend God."  When we consider the fashions of our day, we are led to conclude that the times foretold by the little seer have arrived.  Indeed, the styles of dress of the women and girls of today such as:  very tight clothing; dressing like men, including slacks and tights; low necklines; skirts with hemlines or slits which do not cover the leg below the knee – are absolutely contrary to the norms of Christian modesty.

"The employment of the dress of the other sex, without reasonable cause, is apt to be scandalous, and leads to lewdness and buffoonery."

Davis, Fr. Henry, S.J., "Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol. I" p. 336 (1938).

"In 1954, [Coco] Chanel decided to re-enter the fashion world...Some say that Chanel's comeback was a reaction to [Christian] Dior's femenine styles...[Chanel] introduced bell-bottom pants for women, which were not popular, but which planted the seed for women to start wearing slacks." (p. 48)

Note: Cardinal Siri observed in the letter previously quoted in 1960 -only 6 years later- the sudden rise of women wearing manly attire.