Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: untitled on May 20, 2014, 10:27:34 PM
-
From the website presumably designed for an SSPX school in the US, have a look at this picture taken of the bottom of the main page: is that a lady in pink jeans? Or is it an efeminate-looking man (with rings and bracelets - and pink jeans!)..?
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-W0OJJ0eK18E/U3rWV5mNqOI/AAAAAAAAAQk/I8vzTxIUJR4/s1600/Nueva+imagen+(2).bmp)
http://school.usa.prod.eu.fsspx.net/en
http://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/
-
This is just very wrong... in so many levels. There is no reason for this picture. A young lady should not be dressed like that sitting on the floor and if this happens to be a male, well...then it is an abomination.
-
It's just like the "I'm a Mormon" videos... or the "Catholics, come home" stuff! Do you see the resemblance?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/b-CuPnhJSbo?feature=player_detailpage[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/32hJOeU-1fE?feature=player_detailpage[/youtube]
Now, if you know about mormons (the -actual- mormons), they don't really fit in. Here's the way they carry on.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AtVqba5FSZ8/T2mz_Uu94OI/AAAAAAAACVo/YyBFYBojdO0/s1600/bkh.jpg)
And, I don't think I need to remind you what we look like, but for the sake of argument...
(http://www.blantyre.biz/Easter-Bonnets2.jpg)
(Yes, ladies, it's an old picture, but it's not new either)
The point is, they're trying to "fit in" with the modern world, and so they're trying to make stuff "cool" and "hip" because the SSPX thinks that'll bring in more money.
Welp, have fun. That failed experiment obviously failed before, but then again, all the enemies of the Church convinced everyone at that time (in the 1960s) that it was a good idea to do that. And if they believe we got not one, not two, and not three, but POSSIBLY 4 saints (lol) and all POPES, then, fine, okay, they can just keep posting girls with pants on their website and see how the strategy works...
OR...
They know exactly what they're doing. Self-destruction mode is full on.
-
It does seem she's a "she".
(http://www.oumacusers.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/apple-education-header.png)
(The picture is likely a stock photo, of course.)
-
Do not think for one second that they do not purposely choose the photos.
First the girl in pants, or the boy in pink, and then a close up provocative photo of a young boy with his tongue sticking out.
In this world full of perversion, and with the recent episodes by pederasts within the church, they have no brains to discern what is an appropriate and inappropriate photo?
-
Oh-- you people are such conspiracy theorists! It's just an innocent file photo-- that's all. There's no subliminal indication that we are accepting modernism, or that we've "gone pinko", or that or boys and girls are indistinguishable from each other, or that we let our kids troll that Bad, bad internet! Where do you get such crazy ideas ??
Don't you see how many Novus Ordo schools are closing? Don't you know how many Opus Dei and Ecclesia Dei parents are looking for good, solid schools?? Can 't you see that if we just tweak our image here a little ( Drum Roll, please ), we'll have our schools filled with Novus Ordinarians
who will then re-fill our pews and replace all you bigoted, old-fashioned, opinionated, disobedient, "americanist", sede-vacantist mentality people we are trying to shake off! :laugh1:
-
From the website presumably designed for an SSPX school in the US, have a look at this picture taken of the bottom of the main page: is that a lady in pink jeans? Or is it an efeminate-looking man (with rings and bracelets - and pink jeans!)..?
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-W0OJJ0eK18E/U3rWV5mNqOI/AAAAAAAAAQk/I8vzTxIUJR4/s1600/Nueva+imagen+(2).bmp)
http://school.usa.prod.eu.fsspx.net/en
http://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/
Either way, it is a problem:
If it is a lady, why is she wearing jeans?
If it is a man, why is he effeminately dressed?
My guess is that the design is the brainchild of the branding company, which being pagan/non-trad, would not be aware that they had made a major blunder in posting that picture.
I would bet that the matter is coming to the attention of the District about now, and will be corrected.
-
This was clearly developed from a website template that hasn't been completely scrubbed yet.
If you look at the bottom of the page near the photo cited by the OP, you'll even see the phrase "lorem ipsum" ... that's pseudo Latin that has become customary to use as filler text in website templates.
Let's not go nuts here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorem_ipsum
-
The Church continues to crumble while we are busying ourselves with the SSPX conversion to the world of Jєωιѕн advertising.
Folks, start looking to the source not the symptom.
-
If you look at the bottom of the page near the photo cited by the OP, you'll even see the phrase "lorem ipsum" ... that's pseudo Latin that has become customary to use as filler text in website templates.
^^this.
and JPaul hit the nail on the head, In all these matters, we must stay hyper focused on the big picture. The devil is indeed in the details.
also, just fyi, you can identify the sex of someone by their index-to-ring-finger ratio. In this case, the person pictured is female - shorter ring finger.
(this finger length ratio is one of the compelling components of the argument that Mrs. Presidemt is a male)
-
The webpage still has many dead links, so it has yet to be completed, maybe someone will pass them the messages and maybe they will change things IF they are TRULY oblivious to it.
As for subliminal messages in branding/advertising, of course there is, there always is, otherwise they would take photos from families and plaster them all over like some family photo album.
All media imaging is staged, choreographed and planned.
And if not, why bother with a branding company?
Advertising is a school of study unto itself because of the power of multi-media in our society.
They study the different ways and means to implant THEIR desired message.
The photo of that child was innocent in the eyes of that child.
The photos in general are most probably random photos, but filtered down to the ones we now see on their website, chosen from amongst many.
But placing it side by side with the term Catechism implies instruction, tutelage by a priest (knowingly a man).
They DID NOT place a picture of a child or children:
- praying
- reading
- studying
- or even writing.
They chose an extreme close-up shot of young boy with his tongue sticking out (not girls, not boys and girls).
And they chose to use that picture (the one picture to exemplify a catholic boy) alongside the terminology Catechism?
You are fooling yourselves!
Just like the photos put out to the press of the first lesbian "couple" who had their daughter baptized.
They set the stage with a stark white room, no color, no windows, no trim, no decor. (This sets the stage for a modernist household, no traditional architecture here)
This is to to focus your attention on three things:
1) The police uniform -
On their right hand side (not on the left, not behind them) on a chair they show the police vest of one of the girls, hanging it ever so carefully so the word POLICE is clear and legible.
2) The painting - crying out to the world of their pride
On the left hand side a very large modern painting of what is obviously two women (as evidenced by their exposed chest) "making out".
3) The couple dressed and posed so there is no doubt as to their relationship
Now can you understand what they are saying?
They are saying they have the law on their side, they are the law, and that their lifestyle is now the law.
One thing we teach our teens is to discern and understand if any, the propaganda in media. In fact a common phrase that gets passed around by the teens is -"What's bad about it?" which we then follow with "What's good about it?"
We also teach them to discern and analyze art - Fra Angelico has very meaningful pieces that the children love to dissect.
Teaching the faith through visual representation is also used by the enemy to destroy the faith.
-
I don't EVER remember reading anything from ABL or the pre Vatican II church condemning pants on woman. Modesty in dress, yes. But no official church statement saying that woman must never ware pants.
-
I don't EVER remember reading anything from ABL or the pre Vatican II church condemning pants on woman. Modesty in dress, yes. But no official church statement saying that woman must never ware pants.
Here we go again.... :facepalm:
-
"When we see a woman in trousers [that is, pants], 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." (Notification Concerning Men's Dress Worn by Women, Cardinal Siri, 1960 A.D.)
-
Well?
Name one official pre VII docuмent or one ABL docuмent that condemned woman for wearing pants.
-
Notification Concerning Men's Dress Worn by Women, Cardinal Siri (1960):
"The first signs of our late arriving spring indicate this year a certain increase in the use of men's dress by girls and women, even mothers of families. Up until 1959, in Genoa, such dress usually meant the person was a tourist, but now there 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 - that is, slacks/pants]. The spreading of this behavior obliges us to give serious consideration to the subject, and we ask those to whom this Notification is addressed to kindly give this problem all the attention it deserves, as befits those aware of being answerable to God... 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... 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'. Secondly, ever since men have been men, the clothing a person wears conditions, determines 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 a woman wearing men's dress always more or less indicates her reacting to her femininity as though it were inferior [to masculinity] when in fact it is only diverse. The perversion of her psychology is clearly evident. 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... Experience teaches us that when woman is de-feminized, defenses are undermined and weakness increases... 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. 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 is determined 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 differentiate and divide 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 be considered a factor, over the long term, in disintegrating human order."
-
I don't EVER remember reading anything from ABL or the pre Vatican II church condemning pants on woman. Modesty in dress, yes. But no official church statement saying that woman must never ware pants.
And I don't EVER remember reading anything from ABL or the pre Vatican II church condemning pink pants on men!!!
(http://s7335.storage.proboards.com/3697335/t/G_l7SWwnSA2cdX6fiGRr.jpg)
-
"A woman shall not wear an article proper to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's dress; for anyone who does such things is an abomination to the LORD, your God." (Deut. 22:5)
-
Cardinal Siri also offered the New Mass. Not the best example of a man dedicated to Tradition. If he could be wrong on such a grave matter as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, why not on something as minor as pants? Also, this is just one Cardinals opinion and is not an "official" condemnation of pants.
-
Cardinal Siri also offered the New Mass. Not the best example of a man dedicated to Tradition. If he could be wrong on such a grave matter as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, why not on something as minor as pants? Also, this is just one Cardinals opinion and is not an "official" condemnation of pants.
OK, then could you please point out the part in the quote from Cardinal Siri in which he erred, and show us how that error represents a departure from Catholic norms or femininity and modesty?
I don't think you (or anyone else) can.
PS: Please also be sure to point out where God erred in Deuteronomy.
-
One could argue that there ate most certainly woman's pants and men's pants. While it would not be appropriate for a woman to ware men's pants, nor for a man to ware woman's pants, it would be okay for each as long as they are modest.
-
If one does not naturally see the unsuitability of men's clothing on a woman as to their lack of feminine character and in many cases modesty, then you will be hard pressed to convince them.
-
One could argue that there ate most certainly woman's pants and men's pants. While it would not be appropriate for a woman to ware men's pants, nor for a man to ware woman's pants, it would be okay for each as long as they are modest.
Indeed?
Then you have just robbed the passage from Deuteronomy of any substance.
Therefore, if enough degenerate men started wearing brazierres, could we just say they are "men's brazierres?"
-
Any man or woman who reads the following, and persists in promoting women wearing manly attire, does not have the Faith:
http://www.mycatholicsource.com/mcs/pc/catholic_life/modesty_dress.htm
-
I know Traditional Catholics hate this, but truth be told, the Church has NEVER officially condemned woman from wearing pants. Not St. Luis X, not Pius XII, and not even ABL.
What they all insisted on was modesty in dress.
-
Should have said "Pius X" not Luis "
-
I know Traditional Catholics hate this, but truth be told, the Church has NEVER officially condemned woman from wearing pants. Not St. Luis X, not Pius XII, and not even ABL.
What they all insisted on was modesty in dress.
No, it is you who hate the Church's condemnation of women wearing manly, immodest, and/or unfeminine attire.
May I ask if your wife, mother, and daughters wear pants?
If you have a weak character, that would certainly explain your position.
And while you dismiss Cardinal Siri's condemnation of pants-wearing women (though without being able to demonstrate the error you pretend he makes), you would do well to dwell on this (from the link previously provided):
Further, when a woman wears pants - always considered "masculine apparel"...
* She is treated like a man
* Her gestures and way of walk are less feminine (women are shown to sit and walk differently in skirts than in pants)
* She tends to confuse the roles of men and women
* And, as one author recently pointed out, marketing research has shown that a man's eyes are directed right to a woman's private parts when she wears pants - both in the back and in the front! They can't even help it - the angles automatically direct their eyes there! So each time a woman wears pants, she causes men everywhere to look at her most private areas, both in the back and in the front! Like it or not, this is a fact!
So if you are a woman or girl who wears pants, stop now! Change your wardrobe and begin to dress appropriately as a woman (e.g. skirts, dresses). Be sure to use Mary as your standard. When choosing clothes, ask yourself if Mary would wear them. And don't just use your personal opinion, look to how Mary has dressed in her apparitions (the ones approved by the Church). Her dress is always very modest and feminine. Note that her clothes don't become "trendy" because earthly styles have changed.
-
That is utter nonsense. A woman acts like a lady while wearing pants is still treated like a lady. Catholicism demands it and shame on those who do otherwise.
-
That is utter nonsense. A woman acts like a lady while wearing pants is still treated like a lady. Catholicism demands it and shame on those who do otherwise.
Then according to that, a man wearing a brazierre acts manly, and you should be ashamed for thinking otherwise?
PS: I notice you still can't put your finger on the error you pretend Cardinal Siri makes, as your justification for condoning ignoring the Church's teachings of proper gender comportment, femininity, and modesty.
Shouldn't that indicate to you that you are determined to ignore the Church on this issue whatever it teaches?
-
Like I said, a woman who wares modest woman's slacks is not the same as a man in a bra and panties. Lets stay on track. Key words here are MODEST and WOMAN'S slacks.
-
Like I said, a woman who wares modest woman's slacks is not the same as a man in a bra and panties. Lets stay on track. Key words here are MODEST and WOMAN'S slacks.
So why can't men wear "modest" "men's" panties and bras?
I trust the absurdity of the question demonstrates the absurdity of your position?
-
Like I said Traditional Catholics hate this, but Holy Mother Church and even Sainted Popes and saintly Archbishops, have never condemned woman for wearing pants. Nor do I suspect a line at the gates of heave one for woman who waer pants and those who waer skirts. Sorry. The point that is most important is modesty. And Yes, there are VERY modest lady's slacks.
-
I know, St. Joan of Arc was different right?
-
I know, St. Joan of Arc was different right?
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.
-
Like I said Traditional Catholics hate this, but Holy Mother Church and even Sainted Popes and saintly Archbishops, have never condemned woman for wearing pants. Nor do I suspect a line at the gates of heave one for woman who waer pants and those who waer skirts. Sorry. The point that is most important is modesty. And Yes, there are VERY modest lady's slacks.
Interesting attempt at distinction you are making:
I am citing Cardinals, Scripture, and saints to support my position, yet you persist in maintaining that there is no foundation for the ban on women wearing man's attire.
How do you do that?
-
Sean -and anyone else who went to the SSPX in the days of the Archbishop - did the same dress code exist back then, the same teaching about modesty and skirts? I was not around, but I'd have to assume that yes, it did. If so, how could it be possible that they had this dress code if, as Ekim claims, Archbishop Lefebvre was indifferent to it? If it was made part of the dress code and teachings on modesty under his watch it would be evident he approved of it, even if one has difficulty finding a published record of him saying women should not wear pants. I mean, how did this become entrenched in the SSPX if he didn't agree?
-
Interestingly enough, CI is preventing me from giving Ekim's comment on St. Joan of Arc a "thumbs-down."
In over 3,000+ threads commented upon, this is the first time I have ever had that happen.
Can anyone explain?
-
You'll have to try back later --
The system prevents any one person from being more than 18% of a person's down-thumbs.
So you have to wait for Ekim to reap some more down-thumbs before you'll be able to contribute any more.
Obviously if 5 or more people have this problem...they won't have this problem, if you know what I mean. The more truly unpopular a post/person is, the less this throttling comes into play.
But the 18% rule prevents a few "enemies" (who doesn't have a few hard-core enemies?) from destroying a person's rep score.
-
Hummm...general custom throughout the world for over a hundred years now, is that woman waer woman's slacks. That's a fact, not fiction folks. Even Mrs Cleaver had slacks on once in awhile. Fashions change. They just do. Thank goodness or I'd have to run my military physical fitness test in a skirt and sandles.
-
Interestingly enough, CI is preventing me from giving Ekim's comment on St. Joan of Arc a "thumbs-down."
In over 3,000+ threads commented upon, this is the first time I have ever had that happen.
Can anyone explain?
To prevent one person from systematically destroying another's reputation Matthew has put a limit on the proportion of a poster's down rates which can come from any one other poster. I am getting the same message, btw.
-
Hummm...general custom throughout the world for over a hundred years now, is that woman waer woman's slacks. That's a fact, not fiction folks. Even Mrs Cleaver had slacks on once in awhile. Fashions change. They just do. Thank goodness or I'd have to run my military physical fitness test in a skirt and sandles.
Funny conception of "facts.:
1) A custom in violation of moral norms remains illicit, and in nowise can attain to the status of acceptable morality;
2) More like 50 years;
3) Why would you object to doing your military physical in skirts and sandals, so long as (by your logic) they were "modest" "men's" skirts?
-
The current tally:
I have adduced arguments from Scripture (i.e., God), Cardinal Siri, and St. Thomas Aquinas explicitly prohibiting women from wearing pants.
A pretty good bunch of authorities, that!
Yet Ekim pertinaciously maintains his stubborn opinion in favor of perversion.
What do you do with a guy like that?
If anyone wants to take the baton and run with it, I am passing it off.
This is a bigger time waster than any other subject.
If you want to know how the SSPX softened, women ruling the homestead, and beating their husbands into submission on topics like this, is a good start in diagnosing the roots of the crisis within the SSPX.
Their priests have preached to no avail.
PS: Anyone want to bet that a disproportionately high percentage of those defending pants-wearing "women" also have TV's in their home?
The common denominator:
A fear of being traditional (aka "weird")
They want to be accepted by all, and this deep seated psychological need is what fuels the accordista.
-
Sorry folks, I understand your point, I really do. However, the clothes do not make the woman, the woman makes the clothes. An repented prostitute in a ling flowing dress is still an unrepented prostitute. Just as a virtuous virgin in slacks is still a virtuous virgin.
Once again, the Church has NEVER officially condemned a woman from wearing slacks.
-
Sorry folks, I understand your point, I really do. However, the clothes do not make the woman, the woman makes the clothes. An repented prostitute in a ling flowing dress is still an unrepented prostitute. Just as a virtuous virgin in slacks is still a virtuous virgin.
Once again, the Church has NEVER officially condemned a woman from wearing slacks.
Sorry...couldn't resist this one:
The Church has also never officially condemned smoking crack, murdering 74 yr old 25% Lebanese women on the 3rd day of the month, or mooning police officers.
Yet, the Church most certainly DOES condemn these practices by her moral principles.
Such too is the case with the Church's moral precepts regarding proper gender attire, femininity, and modesty (as proven by the passages provided from Cardinal Siri, God, and St. Thomas).
-
Being Traditional is not weird. What is weird is that those who call themselves Traditional Catholics have somehow taken upon themselves this self appointed dress code that has NEVER been demanded by the Church and then somehow become the self appointed experts on the topic. Condemning those who disagree.
Truth is truth. Like it or not, the Church has NEVER told woman not to waer pants it just hasn't. There is a time and place for everything, in good Christian modesty.
-
Sorry folks, I understand your point, I really do. However, the clothes do not make the woman, the woman makes the clothes. An repented prostitute in a ling flowing dress is still an unrepented prostitute. Just as a virtuous virgin in slacks is still a virtuous virgin.
Once again, the Church has NEVER officially condemned a woman from wearing slacks.
God says otherwise:
“The attire of the body, and the laughter of the teeth, and the gait of the man, show what he is (Eccles 19:27).”
Obviously, the same applies to woman:
Slovenly at masculenized at best; sensuous, vain, scandalous, and immoral at worst.
Condemned in any case.
-
I guess we know who wears the pants in your house....... :reading:
-
How foolish. God looks at the content of a man's soul. Not the clothes on his back. Ibet there are plenty of prostitutes who waer dresses..
-
Modest slacks indicate a modest woman.
-
I never said Cardinal Siri said anything that was not true. His words could also be applied to any modest clothes, not just a long skirt to your calves. I still didn't read where he said woman must wear long skirts to their calves to enter the gates of heaven.
-
Modest slacks indicate a modest woman.
Modesty and slacks are irreconcilable.
There are no such things as modest slacks.
If the goal of modesty is to inspire virtue and avoid temptation and lust, then slacks do not achieve this goal, ergo they are not modest.
And dear Ekim, a lot of prostitutes do wear dresses BECAUSE their clients are looking for women NOT men. They are attracted to the feminine qualities in dresses. The likelihood that the prostitute wearing modest slacks gets picked up over one who wears a dress is slim and proves the point that slacks are not feminine no matter what anybody tries to argue.
-
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this.
Padre Pio on Women's Dress
from Prophet of the People,
by Dorothy M. Gaudiose, pp. 191-2
Women received especially rough treatment from Padre Pio because of current fashions. He had always been a merciless enemy of feminine vanity. "Vanity," he said, "is the son of pride, and is even more malignant than its mother. Have you ever seen a field of ripe corn? Some ears are tall; others are bent to the ground. Try taking the tallest, the proudest ones, and you will see that they are empty; but if you take the smallest, the humblest ones, they are laden with seeds. From this you can see that vanity is empty."
Padre Pio wouldn't tolerate low-necked dresses or short, tight skirts, and he forbade his spiritual daughters to wear transparent stockings. Each year his severity increased. He stubbornly dismissed them from his confessional, even before they set foot inside, if he judged them to be improperly dressed. On some mornings he drove away one after another, until he ended up hearing very few confessions.
His brothers observed these drastic purges with a certain uneasiness and decided to fasten a sign on the church door: "By Padre Pio's explicit wish, women must enter his confessional wearing skirts at least eight inches below the knees. It is forbidden to borrow longer dresses in church and to wear them for the confessional."
The last warning was not without effect. There was a furtive exchange of skirts, blouses, and raincoats, that took place at the last moment in the half-lit church to remedy any failings.
The women made their adjustments, but perhaps not exactly enough. Padre Pio continued to send some away before giving them a chance to confess. He would glower at them and grumble, "Go and get dressed." And sometimes he added, "Clowns!" He spared no one... Persons he saw for the first time, or his long-time spiritual daughters. Often the skirts were decidedly many inches below the knees, but not sufficiently long for his moral severity.
As the years began to weigh on Padre Pio, his daily hours in the confessional were limited to four, equally divided between men and women. In addition to being dressed properly, they had to know the Italian language, even though he could somehow understand people speaking another language. But he knew Italian, Latin, and very little French, consistently refusing to hear confessions except in Italian or Latin.
Sometimes when Padre Pio refused to absolve his penitents and closed the small confessional door in their faces, the people would reproach him asking why he acted this way. "Don't you know," he asked, "what pain it costs me to shut the door on anyone? The Lord has forced me to do so. I do not call anyone, nor do I refuse anyone either. There is someone else who calls and refuses them. I am His useless tool."
Even the men had rules to follow. They were not permitted to enter the church with three-quarter length sleeves. Boys as well as men had to wear long trousers at church, if they didn't want to be shown out of church, that is. But women in short skirts were his prime targets. Padre Pio's citadel was perhaps the only place in the world where the fashions of the 1930s still ruled in the 1960s.
(Do you recall what Our Lady of Fatima said about "certain fashions?")
Padre Pio’s attitude towards modesty of wearing apparel on women and girls (also on men and boys) was well-known, docuмented, and always enforced at least in his physical presence. He was especially adamant on the wearing of slacks (and shorts) by women. I had occasion, in April of 1963, to interview, in San Giovanni Rotondo, a Catholic lady, Italian by descent, and fluent in the language of her forbearers, who had been refused absolution in confession, by Padre Pio, BECAUSE SHE SOLD SLACKS AND PANT-SUITS IN HER DRESS SHOP IN VANCOUVER.
He commanded her to return home to Canada, and dispose of ALL this stock, and not to give any of the items to people who might wear them, and if she wanted his absolution, she could come back to Italy and receive it, ONLY after she had ruthlessly carried out his orders. The alternative was, she could seek the absolution in another confession, back in Canada but he, Padre Pio, would KNOW whether she had done what she’d been told.
He had signs in the Church. Here are two of them:
“The Church is the house of God.
"It is forbidden for women to enter with bare arms or in shorts. It is forbidden for women to enter in trousers, without a veil on their head, in short clothing, low necklines, sleeveless or immodest dresses.”
and...
“By Padre Pio’s explicit wish, women must enter the confessional wearing skirts at least 8 inches below the knee, it is forbidden to borrow longer dresses in Church and wear them to Confession”
Read about Padre Pio's idea of modesty, Ekim. Please.
http://www.catholic-truths.com/truth/?p=381
-
How foolish. God looks at the content of a man's soul. Not the clothes on his back. Ibet there are plenty of prostitutes who waer dresses..
Sorry to read you calling Scripture foolish, but not altogether surprised by now.
-
I never said Cardinal Siri said anything that was not true. His words could also be applied to any modest clothes, not just a long skirt to your calves. I still didn't read where he said woman must wear long skirts to their calves to enter the gates of heaven.
No, that would be Pope Pius XII and Cardinal Ottaviani that said that.
Man, you are really digging yourself a deep hole.
By the time this thread is done, you will be back in the Novus Ordo (i.e., they also look for excuses to ignore the teachings of the Church in favor of liberty for their own opinions).
-
Modest slacks indicate a modest woman.
Therefore, modest bras and dresses indicate a modest and masculine man?
Pfft...
-
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this.
Padre Pio on Women's Dress
from Prophet of the People,
by Dorothy M. Gaudiose, pp. 191-2
Women received especially rough treatment from Padre Pio because of current fashions. He had always been a merciless enemy of feminine vanity. "Vanity," he said, "is the son of pride, and is even more malignant than its mother. Have you ever seen a field of ripe corn? Some ears are tall; others are bent to the ground. Try taking the tallest, the proudest ones, and you will see that they are empty; but if you take the smallest, the humblest ones, they are laden with seeds. From this you can see that vanity is empty."
Padre Pio wouldn't tolerate low-necked dresses or short, tight skirts, and he forbade his spiritual daughters to wear transparent stockings. Each year his severity increased. He stubbornly dismissed them from his confessional, even before they set foot inside, if he judged them to be improperly dressed. On some mornings he drove away one after another, until he ended up hearing very few confessions.
His brothers observed these drastic purges with a certain uneasiness and decided to fasten a sign on the church door: "By Padre Pio's explicit wish, women must enter his confessional wearing skirts at least eight inches below the knees. It is forbidden to borrow longer dresses in church and to wear them for the confessional."
The last warning was not without effect. There was a furtive exchange of skirts, blouses, and raincoats, that took place at the last moment in the half-lit church to remedy any failings.
The women made their adjustments, but perhaps not exactly enough. Padre Pio continued to send some away before giving them a chance to confess. He would glower at them and grumble, "Go and get dressed." And sometimes he added, "Clowns!" He spared no one... Persons he saw for the first time, or his long-time spiritual daughters. Often the skirts were decidedly many inches below the knees, but not sufficiently long for his moral severity.
As the years began to weigh on Padre Pio, his daily hours in the confessional were limited to four, equally divided between men and women. In addition to being dressed properly, they had to know the Italian language, even though he could somehow understand people speaking another language. But he knew Italian, Latin, and very little French, consistently refusing to hear confessions except in Italian or Latin.
Sometimes when Padre Pio refused to absolve his penitents and closed the small confessional door in their faces, the people would reproach him asking why he acted this way. "Don't you know," he asked, "what pain it costs me to shut the door on anyone? The Lord has forced me to do so. I do not call anyone, nor do I refuse anyone either. There is someone else who calls and refuses them. I am His useless tool."
Even the men had rules to follow. They were not permitted to enter the church with three-quarter length sleeves. Boys as well as men had to wear long trousers at church, if they didn't want to be shown out of church, that is. But women in short skirts were his prime targets. Padre Pio's citadel was perhaps the only place in the world where the fashions of the 1930s still ruled in the 1960s.
(Do you recall what Our Lady of Fatima said about "certain fashions?")
Padre Pio’s attitude towards modesty of wearing apparel on women and girls (also on men and boys) was well-known, docuмented, and always enforced at least in his physical presence. He was especially adamant on the wearing of slacks (and shorts) by women. I had occasion, in April of 1963, to interview, in San Giovanni Rotondo, a Catholic lady, Italian by descent, and fluent in the language of her forbearers, who had been refused absolution in confession, by Padre Pio, BECAUSE SHE SOLD SLACKS AND PANT-SUITS IN HER DRESS SHOP IN VANCOUVER.
He commanded her to return home to Canada, and dispose of ALL this stock, and not to give any of the items to people who might wear them, and if she wanted his absolution, she could come back to Italy and receive it, ONLY after she had ruthlessly carried out his orders. The alternative was, she could seek the absolution in another confession, back in Canada but he, Padre Pio, would KNOW whether she had done what she’d been told.
He had signs in the Church. Here are two of them:
“The Church is the house of God.
"It is forbidden for women to enter with bare arms or in shorts. It is forbidden for women to enter in trousers, without a veil on their head, in short clothing, low necklines, sleeveless or immodest dresses.”
and...
“By Padre Pio’s explicit wish, women must enter the confessional wearing skirts at least 8 inches below the knee, it is forbidden to borrow longer dresses in Church and wear them to Confession”
Read about Padre Pio's idea of modesty, Ekim. Please.
http://www.catholic-truths.com/truth/?p=381
PFT-
It won't matter.
So long as there is no ex cathedra pronouncement on the matter, Ekim will continue to delude himself that the Church has never condemned women wearing men's attire.
-
Last I recall, it is the Church who has the authority to interpret scripture, not Sean Johnson. In over two thousand years has the Church taught that this verse meant woman can not wear modest slacks. When we all start interpreting sacred scripture as we see fit we become no better than Protestant's.
Our Lady of Fatima never said woman must ot wear slacks. She warned that immodesty in dress would be introduced.
Padre Pio's sanctity can not be denied, but he is still NOT the teaching authority of the Church.
-
Hmm, so he had the wounds of Our Lord, he refused, sitting as an Altar Christus, to absolve a woman, not for WEARING pants, but for selling them to others that they should wear them, and until she THREW THE PANTS AWAY, he was not going to absolve her. He would not hear confessions from ladies in pants. Clearly he was being unjust, and since the Church didn't definitively, ex cathedra, say, that women should not wear pants, he was being far too harsh, and should be responsible for all those women who righteously refused to set aside their virtuous womanly pants that decided not to return to confession after being refused by Padre Pio.
-
Last I recall, it is the Church who has the authority to interpret scripture, not Sean Johnson. In over two thousand years has the Church taught that this verse meant woman can not wear modest slacks. When we all start interpreting sacred scripture as we see fit we become no better than Protestant's.
Our Lady of Fatima never said woman must ot wear slacks. She warned that immodesty in dress would be introduced.
Padre Pio's sanctity can not be denied, but he is still NOT the teaching authority of the Church.
Ahem...
Last I recall, I cited St. Thomas Aquinas quoting Deuteronomy to back HIS opinion that women may not wear manly attire.
It had no effect on you.
-
I wonder - to those who believe that a woman will not go to hell for wearing slacks - you are familiar with the term occasion of sin, correct? Dressing in less than ideal attire may not be a sin, but it certainly is an occasion of sin for both the person wearing the questionable attire and people he or she comes in contact with. One can be dressed in "modest" slacks, to catch the eye of a passerby, and could potentially be provoking him(or her) to mortal sin.
Universally known modest dress is defined as slacks (no jeans) and a collared shirt for men, skirts(well below the knee), and a blouse for women, in both cases flattering the figure rather than accentuating it. MEN IT GOES BOTH WAYS - NO JEANS!
That's normal dress in public as defined not only by Catholic decency, but universal decency about 50 years ago. There are circuмstances where departing from that dress can be acceptable, but never preferred, and should not be typical. IE - my mother lives on a ranch and helps my dad with cows and fencing when the need arises. It is difficult to do in a skirt, so jeans it is. However, it would be best for her not to be doing such physically demanding work. PS - when the occasion for jeans arises, it is back to modest dress as soon as the work for the day is completed.
-
Modesty and slacks are irreconcilable, is subjective.
I would argue that any man who has lustful thoughts when he see woman in slacks has other issues to deal with than lady's wearing pants.
-
So far, the authorities adduced for the condemnation of women wearing manly attire include:
1) Ecclesiasticus;
2) Deuteronomy;
3) St. Thomas Aquinas;
4) St. Pio;
5) Cardinal Siri;
The authorities cited in favor of permitting women to wear manly attire are:
1) ?
-
Modesty and slacks are irreconcilable, is subjective.
I would argue that any man who has lustful thoughts when he see woman in slacks has other issues to deal with than lady's wearing pants.
And based on that comment, I would argue you are incredibly ignorant regarding human nature, the consequences of original sin, and Catholic morality generally.
-
The way Our Lord wants to give out Holy Communion...
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JnXd16RlK_c/TAcL1VDs2eI/AAAAAAAARKk/ujj4Fzznva8/s400/Holy+Communion+Holy+Card8.png)
The way people give out holy communion now.
(https://andrewmarrosb.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/eucharist1.jpg)
If this attire is not appropriate at Church, it's not appropriate anywhere.
-
The Magisterium has not expressly ruled on the pants because women started using them, around the world, since the 60s. Liberals clerics pleasing pants in women. So do not condemn. But the principles of Catholic moral not allowed women to wear pants.
-
Modest slacks indicate a modest woman.
Modest slacks indicate a modestly masculinized woman.
-
I know it is always hard to accept that the Church has never condemned woman for wearing pants. It just hasn't. St. Thomas talks about woman wearing men's fashion trends. Pants are not just for men. They aren't. There are woman's slacks, that is, slacks cut and styled for woman specifically. There just are. And many are very modest, they just are.
The Church has never demanded a dress code for one to be forgiven their sins, just true remorse and firm purpose of amendment. One would have to question Padre Pio's motives for doing so. An old Italian man from Naples told me that when he was a boy he and his friends hopped on a train to Fogia to go to confession. Theh waited in line for most of the day. Finally the Padre entered the church. He walked by hundreds of people without saying a word. He stopped in front of him and his friends and scold them saying "Go home and conf
ess to your parish priest. I am no circus side show " he knew their true heart. Perhaps it was the disposition of these woman rather than the clothes on their body.
This point is mute so I will no longer be replying but the bottom line is woman can lead good and holy lives wearing modest slacks just as they can wearing a skirt or dress. The confession lines at every traditional church I've been to is full of woman wearing long skirts....hhhmmmm????
-
Modest slacks indicate a modest woman.
A woman who recoils at the idea of wearing pants, makes a modest woman.
Being a man, you should know this. MEN FOLLOW LINES. PANTS ACCENTUATE LINES. Perhaps you're not too old to just watch this, and see what your fellow men say on the subject.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/sWKipaNH83E?feature=player_detailpage[/youtube]
Please pay special attention to quotes from the Saints, especially Saint John Chrysostom.
-
"The good of our soul is more important than the good of our body; and we have to prefer the spiritual welfare of our neighbor to our bodily comforts.. If a certain kind of dress constitutes a grave and proximate occasion of sin, and endangers the salvation of your soul and others, it is your duty to give it up... O Christian mothers, if you knew what a future of anxieties and perils, of ill-guarded shame you prepare for your sons and daughters, imprudently getting them accustomed to live scantily dressed and making them lose the sense of modesty, you would be ashamed of yourselves and you would dread the harm you are making for yourselves, the harm which you are causing these children, whom Heaven has entrusted to you to be brought up as Christians." (Moral Problems in Fashion Design Pope Pius XII)
"Yet, no matter how broad and changeable the relative morals of styles may be, there is always an absolute norm to be kept after having heard the admonition of conscience warning against approaching danger: style must never be a proximate occasion of sin." (Pope Pius XII, "Moral Problems in Fashion Design", 1957)
Pants are a proximate occasion of sin for men. They just are!
Putting the encyclical in the library.
-
I know it is always hard to accept that the Church has never condemned woman for wearing pants. It just hasn't. St. Thomas talks about woman wearing men's fashion trends. Pants are not just for men. They aren't. There are woman's slacks, that is, slacks cut and styled for woman specifically. There just are. And many are very modest, they just are.
The Church has never demanded a dress code for one to be forgiven their sins, just true remorse and firm purpose of amendment. One would have to question Padre Pio's motives for doing so. An old Italian man from Naples told me that when he was a boy he and his friends hopped on a train to Fogia to go to confession. Theh waited in line for most of the day. Finally the Padre entered the church. He walked by hundreds of people without saying a word. He stopped in front of him and his friends and scold them saying "Go home and conf
ess to your parish priest. I am no circus side show " he knew their true heart. Perhaps it was the disposition of these woman rather than the clothes on their body.
This point is mute so I will no longer be replying but the bottom line is woman can lead good and holy lives wearing modest slacks just as they can wearing a skirt or dress. The confession lines at every traditional church I've been to is full of woman wearing long skirts....hhhmmmm????
Regarding your 1st paragraph:
1) Therefore, dresses and brazierres aren't just for women?
2) By your logic, there can be men's bras?
3) Such bras will not negate the masculinity of the man wearing them?
4) Nor ought it to indicate any gender issues?
Regarding your 2nd paragraph:
1) You are even willing to question the motives of a saint to adhere to your untenable position?
2) I might also observe this paragraph to be a bit femenine in tone/tenor; kind of Novus Ordo/mushy/homo-ish.
3) Perhaps the disposition of these women IS REFLECTED BY THEIR MANLY ATTIRE? Perhaps you can teach God a good lesson for saying the same thing in Deut/Eccles?
Regarding your 3rd paragraph:
1) Could it be that the pants wearing women at your Church don't go to confession?
2) Could it be that they (like you) will refuse to repent and amend their lives, and therefore confession will do them no good?
3) Does your modernism extend beyond merely moral evolution into other forms of rebellion against the Church?
-
I don't EVER remember reading anything from ABL or the pre Vatican II church condemning pants on woman. Modesty in dress, yes. But no official church statement saying that woman must never ware pants.
Ekim, I 'll try and look it up, but there was a very well regarded Cardinal (Siri, I believe), who wrote a rather excellent epistle to his entire Diocese in Italy on why women
should not wear men's clothes--specifically the pants. While I don't recall whether he mentioned it or not, the "uni-sexing" of the garments has been a communist/ illuminati gambit for a long, long time. To get the females to think they can do all the men's jobs (see the "police female" in the picture), and brainwash the males into paying attention to their "feminine side",
helped grease the slide into open lesbianism and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity-- which was against the law throughout the country.
Bishop Williamson, of course, has also preached on this (and, of course, has been attacked for it). Well trained Protestant preachers
( like Pastor Pete) have also spoken extensively on the mistake of women to dress as men; and vice versa; and the prohibitions against the same issued by God in the bible.
-
I don't EVER remember reading anything from ABL or the pre Vatican II church condemning pants on woman. Modesty in dress, yes. But no official church statement saying that woman must never ware pants.
Ekim, I 'll try and look it up, but there was a very well regarded Cardinal (Siri, I believe), who wrote a rather excellent epistle to his entire Diocese in Italy on why women
should not wear men's clothes--specifically the pants. While I don't recall whether he mentioned it or not, the "uni-sexing" of the garments has been a communist/ illuminati gambit for a long, long time. To get the females to think they can do all the men's jobs (see the "police female" in the picture), and brainwash the males into paying attention to their "feminine side",
helped grease the slide into open lesbianism and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity-- which was against the law throughout the country.
Bishop Williamson, of course, has also preached on this (and, of course, has been attacked for it). Well trained Protestant preachers
( like Pastor Pete) have also spoken extensively on the mistake of women to dress as men; and vice versa; and the prohibitions against the same issued by God in the bible.
Cited back on p.4 of this thread.
-
And, I don't think I need to remind you what we look like, but for the sake of argument...
(http://www.blantyre.biz/Easter-Bonnets2.jpg)
(Yes, ladies, it's an old picture, but it's not new either)
Quite frankly, I don't care for this look of women in the 50's because it is reflective of progressivism and feminism creeping into society and the Church. The short hair, and the dawning of low-cut tops and very short sleeves, reflects this erosion of cultural standards and roles of women. Although this picture was taken long before I was born, I, as a man, still can see it is a beginning corruption and distortion.
-
Notification Concerning Men's Dress Worn by Women, Cardinal Siri (1960):
"The first signs of our late arriving spring indicate this year a certain increase in the use of men's dress by girls and women, even mothers of families. Up until 1959, in Genoa, such dress usually meant the person was a tourist, but now there 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 - that is, slacks/pants]. The spreading of this behavior obliges us to give serious consideration to the subject, and we ask those to whom this Notification is addressed to kindly give this problem all the attention it deserves, as befits those aware of being answerable to God... 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... 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'. Secondly, ever since men have been men, the clothing a person wears conditions, determines 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 a woman wearing men's dress always more or less indicates her reacting to her femininity as though it were inferior [to masculinity] when in fact it is only diverse. The perversion of her psychology is clearly evident. 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... Experience teaches us that when woman is de-feminized, defenses are undermined and weakness increases... 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. 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 is determined 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 differentiate and divide 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 be considered a factor, over the long term, in disintegrating human order."
Thanks, Sean. I should have read further-- and I should have known you or Neil would have this!
-
And, I don't think I need to remind you what we look like, but for the sake of argument...
(http://www.blantyre.biz/Easter-Bonnets2.jpg)
(Yes, ladies, it's an old picture, but it's not new either)
Quite frankly, I don't care for this look of women in the 50's because it is reflective of progressivism and feminism creeping into society and the Church. The short hair, and the dawning of low-cut tops and very short sleeves, reflects this erosion of cultural standards and roles of women. Although this picture was taken long before I was born, I, as a man, still can see it is a beginning corruption and distortion.
"[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" [Sacred Congregation of the Council (under Pope Pius XI), January 12, 1930]
-
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.
-
To the question someone raised many pages ago:"Why didn't ABL preach about women wearing dresses snd skirts?"
Several things:
Firstly, ABL was not converting, at least not in the U.S., people (women), to tradition. We were already traditional. His commitment to us was to train priests for us that would preserve the traditions. In the 1960's and 70's , you didn't see any traditional chapels in which the women were not modest ( and the menfolk dressed modestly and proper, too!).
Secondly, In some places (like, say, Long Island), the " girls" got into that nasty littly habit of "changing" their dresses for tight jeans and short skirts right after Mass on Sunday. Most of the 'policing' of that fell upon the 'pastor'. Unfortunately, all too often he was young and inexperienced,and, in any event, had to 'run' to the next mass center.
Thirdly, As the schools started opening, modesty in dress was covered in Religion classes.
These would be the main reasons the ABL didn't have to speak on these issues often, if in fact he didn't.
D
-
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.
-
Church has never condemned woman for wearing pants. What it condemns is immodest dress, period! Not all pants are immodest.
...other than a woman wearing pants.
That is all.
I don't seem to see the importance of defending "women's rights to wear pants" or point of this on Cath info.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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).
-
Like I said, a woman who wares modest woman's slacks is not the same as a man in a bra and panties. Lets stay on track. Key words here are MODEST and WOMAN'S slacks.
Bishop de Castro Mayer actually said that having women dress like men was actually WORSE than having women dress immodestly because the former runs counter to nature.
-
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.
-
Bishop Richard Williamson:
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.
...
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.
...
Never wear trousers or shorts. Bishop de Castro Mayer was right
Read the entire article here (I know, funny place on the web to find this.)
http://www.womenpriests.org/theology/william1.asp
-
"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).
-
Excerpts from Colleen Hammond's "Dressing with Dignity" follow:
"About that same time [1920's], designers Yves Saint-Laurent and Courreges introduced dressy pantsuits for women. However, nearly all women rejected the idea of wearing pants, and designers didn't try again until much later." (p. 44)
-
"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.
-
"A feminist is someone who loathes being a woman and dislikes the chief feminine characteristics." (Hammond quoting GK Chesterton on p. 49).
-
"Before long, designers were showing slacks on the runways. Then came designer jeans...This symbol of the feminist movement was clearly something different from what women of refinement had always worn." (p. 49).
Note: It is therefore condemned by the quote of St. Thomas previously cited.
-
"Advertising agencies quickly prepared marketing research to find out the reaction of men to a woman wearing pants. Do you know what they found? Using newly developed technology, they tracked the path that a man's eyes take when looking at a woman in pants. They found that when a man looked at a woman in pants from the back, he looked directly at her bottom. When he looked at a woman wearing pants from the front, advertisers found that his eyes dropped directly to a woman's most private and intimate area. Not her face! Not her chest!" (p. 49)
-
"In order to destroy Catholicism, it is necessary to commence by suppressing woman...but since we cannot suppress woman, let us corrupt her..." (Letter between two leading Freemasons; cited by Hammond on p. 53)
-
"Every woman I know acknowledges that when she's wearing a dress, she moves and acts differently from when she is wearing pants." (p. 67)
Note: Corroborates Cardinal Siri's 1960 condemnation of pants-wearing women.
-
Righteous indignation spam :whistleblower:
-
"Every woman I know acknowledges that when she's wearing a dress, she moves and acts differently from when she is wearing pants." (p. 67)
Note: Corroborates Cardinal Siri's 1960 condemnation of pants-wearing women.
All very true. Pants simply make women masculine. They're another part of the destruction of the natural way of life of men and women.
It's no coincidence that feminism and pants have spread everywhere at the same time. The source of one is the other.
-
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
-
someone's reading cathinfo....
and we will be reading st john bosco.... :detective:
-
From the website presumably designed for an SSPX school in the US, have a look at this picture taken of the bottom of the main page: is that a lady in pink jeans? Or is it an efeminate-looking man (with rings and bracelets - and pink jeans!)..?
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-W0OJJ0eK18E/U3rWV5mNqOI/AAAAAAAAAQk/I8vzTxIUJR4/s1600/Nueva+imagen+(2).bmp)
http://school.usa.prod.eu.fsspx.net/en
http://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/
Either way, it is a problem:
If it is a lady, why is she wearing jeans?
If it is a man, why is he effeminately dressed?
My guess is that the design is the brainchild of the branding company, which being pagan/non-trad, would not be aware that they had made a major blunder in posting that picture.
I would bet that the matter is coming to the attention of the District about now, and will be corrected.
Good speculation.
-
someone's reading cathinfo....
and we will be reading st john bosco.... :detective:
Perhaps, but as Ladislaus pointed out way back on p.2 of this thread, it was a stock photo placed there by the web design company while the site is under construction.
The sspx had nothing to do with it, and removed it as soon as it was brought to their attention.
-
This was clearly developed from a website template that hasn't been completely scrubbed yet.
If you look at the bottom of the page near the photo cited by the OP, you'll even see the phrase "lorem ipsum" ... that's pseudo Latin that has become customary to use as filler text in website templates.
Let's not go nuts here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorem_ipsum
I wish the same latitude would have been afforded to the priests who "slipped" and spoke of Vatican II errors or SSPX errors and were hastily called and warned or expelled. Funny how forgiving we sheeple need to be over stock pictures that run contrary to everything we have known, as Traditional Catholics, but priests and the faithful can be abused for upholding the principles that have always been part of the fight against Modernism.
-
This was clearly developed from a website template that hasn't been completely scrubbed yet.
If you look at the bottom of the page near the photo cited by the OP, you'll even see the phrase "lorem ipsum" ... that's pseudo Latin that has become customary to use as filler text in website templates.
Let's not go nuts here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorem_ipsum
I wish the same latitude would have been afforded to the priests who "slipped" and spoke of Vatican II errors or SSPX errors and were hastily called and warned or expelled. Funny how forgiving we sheeple need to be over stock pictures that run contrary to everything we have known, as Traditional Catholics, but priests and the faithful can be abused for upholding the principles that have always been part of the fight against Modernism.
The one has nothing to do with the other.
-
someone's reading cathinfo....
and we will be reading st john bosco.... :detective:
Perhaps, but as Ladislaus pointed out way back on p.2 of this thread, it was a stock photo placed there by the web design company while the site is under construction.
The sspx had nothing to do with it, and removed it as soon as it was brought to their attention.
Nothing to do with it?
The article is from May 17: http://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/show/42271619-branding-cont-d-
The photo has been there 5 days at least. Exists the sin of omission, the failure to do something one can and ought to do...
-
someone's reading cathinfo....
and we will be reading st john bosco.... :detective:
Perhaps, but as Ladislaus pointed out way back on p.2 of this thread, it was a stock photo placed there by the web design company while the site is under construction.
The sspx had nothing to do with it, and removed it as soon as it was brought to their attention.
Nothing to do with it?
The article is from May 17: http://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/show/42271619-branding-cont-d-
The photo has been there 5 days at least. Exists the sin of omission, the failure to do something one can and ought to do...
It is gone.
-
There is an obligation to repair. A brief note would suffice.
-
From the website presumably designed for an SSPX school in the US, have a look at this picture taken of the bottom of the main page: is that a lady in pink jeans? Or is it an efeminate-looking man (with rings and bracelets - and pink jeans!)..?
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-W0OJJ0eK18E/U3rWV5mNqOI/AAAAAAAAAQk/I8vzTxIUJR4/s1600/Nueva+imagen+(2).bmp)
http://school.usa.prod.eu.fsspx.net/en
http://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/
Is that a red kabbalah bracelet on her wrist?