Bishop Williamson

[GratefulLiving]

Hey fello trads (and those of you that are not I came accross a letter by Bishop Williamson (SSPX…I know) about women and modesty, and wondered what other people might think about it. I feel as if I may be going off the deep end here, but he seems rather strict on this one. To me, most of what he expresses is more based on personal opinion rather than deffinative, infallable papal teaching. To my knowledge, no pope has ever openly stated that women cannot wear pants. Many have exhorted women to think very carefully about their modesty (which I totally agree with), but nothing deffinative. In fact, I read an article at Fisheaters.com in which a pope actually told women that it (wearing pants) would not impede their salvation.

Am I going crazy here, or is it possible to have different opinions on this and still practice modesty?

here are the links:
Bishop Williamson’s letter - sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/September1-1991.htm

Fisheaters.com - fisheaters.com/modesty.html

 

[GerardP]

Hey fello trads (and those of you that are not I came accross a letter by Bishop Williamson (SSPX…I know) about women and modesty, and wondered what other people might think about it. I feel as if I may be going off the deep end here, but he seems rather strict on this one. To me, most of what he expresses is more based on personal opinion rather than deffinative, infallable papal teaching. To my knowledge, no pope has ever openly stated that women cannot wear pants. Many have exhorted women to think very carefully about their modesty (which I totally agree with), but nothing deffinative. In fact, I read an article at Fisheaters.com in which a pope actually told women that it (wearing pants) would not impede their salvation.

Am I going crazy here, or is it possible to have different opinions on this and still practice modesty?

here are the links:
Bishop Williamson’s letter - sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/September1-1991.htm

Fisheaters.com - fisheaters.com/modesty.html

The bishop is not appealing to people on the basis of Church teaching on the specifics of dress. He is pointing out some of the more subtle signs of the disintegration of society which are indirect attacks on the faith.

He’s been talking of the “blurring of the genders” for quite a long time and he’s being proven right as time goes on.

This sudden splurge of movies (eg. John Travolta playing a woman in “Hairspray” and Cate Blanchett is playing Bob Dylan in a recent movie.) is further pushing the envelope towards acceptance of transgenderizing the culture and denying masculinity and feminity.

The ultimate attack is against the Trinity as Fr. Malachi Martin pointed out. If you can destroy the male/female family dynamic, the Trinity stops being a relevant model of the human family and the devil can work against someone’s faith that much more easily.

Bishop Williamson isn’t saying anything that Cardinal Siri (one of the most brilliant of the Cardinals of the last century wrote in 1960)

geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/nodress.htm

 

[FATIMAisUrgent]

Hey fello trads (and those of you that are not I came accross a letter by Bishop Williamson (SSPX…I know) about women and modesty, and wondered what other people might think about it. I feel as if I may be going off the deep end here, but he seems rather strict on this one. To me, most of what he expresses is more based on personal opinion rather than deffinative, infallable papal teaching. To my knowledge, no pope has ever openly stated that women cannot wear pants. Many have exhorted women to think very carefully about their modesty (which I totally agree with), but nothing deffinative. In fact, I read an article at Fisheaters.com in which a pope actually told women that it (wearing pants) would not impede their salvation.

Am I going crazy here, or is it possible to have different opinions on this and still practice modesty?

here are the links:
Bishop Williamson’s letter - sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/September1-1991.htm

Fisheaters.com - fisheaters.com/modesty.html

It’s been awhile since I’ve read that specific letter, or any of them actually. From what I remember, I seemed to agree with most of what he said. As for pants on women, you are correct to my knowledge that there has been no authoritative statements on it, other than Cardinal Siri’s statement, which is not the highest authority but it is worth considering I think.

The way I see it is that there are two issues: modesty and distinguishing gender. Modesty is the easier question because there are clear objective standards for concealing that which should not be seen in public (though not without some subjectivity). Pants, objectively speaking, are usually more revealing of the figure when worn by women (that is if they are worn like a man with shirt tucked in and belt, etc. But pants can be worn in a way that is perfectly modest (when loose fitting and with shirt/blouse reaching well below waist for example). That may sound extreme but it seems perfectly reasonable to me, and you women should consider how weak we guys are in this regard, so please help us out. I don’t remember were I read this but the analogy goes something like this: “While man should not overpower a woman with his strength, a woman must not overpower a man with her beauty.”

Now the gender issue is a little harder because fashions and styles within cultures can vary greatly. Though my opinion is that pants have a more masculine look, traditionally, and I would much rather see a woman in a full length skirt, I’m not going to pry someone if they are wearing their pants modestly. I also believe that pants were encouraged for women by a feminist agenda, so that is another reason why I tend to not like them, but anyways I’m curious to know what others think about this because usually it is a very touchy subject. I hope my opinions have been expressed clearly.

 

[tcraig]

Am I going crazy here, or is it possible to have different opinions on this and still practice modesty?

Of course it is.

IF skirts/dresses only were the only forms that modest dress for women should take, then Rome would issue a definitive statement that indicates this is the case for ALL Catholic women.

Of course, this has never been done (though you are correct in that various popes have exhorted the faithful about dressing modestly). Our church is a universal one, and even the Catechism states that the forms of modest dress will vary among cultures.

The only women I’ve ever seen who “blur” the gender roles are those butch Lesbian women who dress lumberjack-style with short haircuts. Of course, they’ve got bigger problems than what they’re wearing. Most females who wear pants are clearly distinguished as such.

 

[GerardP]

The only women I’ve ever seen who “blur” the gender roles are those butch Lesbian women who dress lumberjack-style with short haircuts. Of course, they’ve got bigger problems than what they’re wearing. Most females who wear pants are clearly distinguished as such.

That’s only the most extreme form of the blurring. If you can stand it, take a look at a high fashion runway exhibition. Women are starved to the point where all of their natural curves are gone. Their hair has been clipped and the makeup gives them impression that they are 15 year old boys.

The excuse by the designers is that “the clothes hang better” on the skinny girls. I think it is something more sinister.

The recent trend of men being “metrosexuals” in that they are primping and attending their nails and complexion in a totally laughable way is another example.

A third example would be on television action adventure shows where a beautiful women (eg. Jessica Alba in the “Dark Angel” series or any of the women in the “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” ) shows are demonstrating savagery and physical prowess that besides being unrealistic is defeminizing.

Another would be in sports. I recently saw a fight between two women on the “Fight Club” shows that are 100’s of times more brutal than boxing.

Women Body Builders, Women Soldiers, Women Police, Women Firefighters. These are all the poor legacy of feminism.

When Chivalry was replaced with Chauvinism, Feminism was the by-product. The answer is Chivalry among men to reclaim their masculinity. Women will naturally reassert their feminity when this happens.

 

[FATIMAisUrgent]

Of course it is.

IF skirts/dresses only were the only forms that modest dress for women should take, then Rome would issue a definitive statement that indicates this is the case for ALL Catholic women.

Of course, this has never been done (though you are correct in that various popes have exhorted the faithful about dressing modestly). Our church is a universal one, and even the Catechism states that the forms of modest dress will vary among cultures.

The only women I’ve ever seen who “blur” the gender roles are those butch Lesbian women who dress lumberjack-style with short haircuts. Of course, they’ve got bigger problems than what they’re wearing. Most females who wear pants are clearly distinguished as such.

I agree that there are different “forms” of modest dress in different cultures, but would you agree that there are at least some objective non-cultural guidlines such as “too tight,” “too much skin,” etc.? Not trying to be argumentative but I’m curious.

 

[tcraig]

I agree that there are different “forms” of modest dress in different cultures, but would you agree that there are at least some objective non-cultural guidlines such as “too tight,” “too much skin,” etc.? Not trying to be argumentative but I’m curious.

Even “objective” standards can vary with the times. For example, dresses in the past (prior to the protestant reformation) were often quite low-cut, even for daily wear. Today we would consider visible cleavage as immodest, but it apparently it wasn’t that big of a deal at one time in our Catholic history.

Additionally, I can’t see a man today wearing a codpiece and not having someone comment on it (it seems pretty immodest by our standards today) but there was a time when a codpiece for men was part of the daily dress.

 

[FATIMAisUrgent]

Even “objective” standards can vary with the times. For example, dresses in the past (prior to the protestant reformation) were often quite low-cut, even for daily wear. Today we would consider visible cleavage as immodest, but it apparently it wasn’t that big of a deal at one time in our Catholic history.

Additionally, I can’t see a man today wearing a codpiece and not having someone comment on it (it seems pretty immodest by our standards today) but there was a time when a codpiece for men was part of the daily dress.

Thanks for the reply. Two things though. First, what is a codpiece? Second, I’m not so sure I can agree that a low-cut dress can be modest in one century but not in another. I’m pretty sure that since The Fall, men have always been pretty susceptible to falling into sin at the sight of a woman’s cleavage, but maybe not. I guess I wouldn’t know unless I lived and grew up back then. I would agree that some people are more, or less, susceptible to these temptations then others, but I think as a society/community there would have to be some sort of bare minimum for the sake of peace and lack of scandal.

 

[Melanie01]

Thanks for the reply. Two things though. First, what is a codpiece? Second, I’m not so sure I can agree that a low-cut dress can be modest in one century but not in another. I’m pretty sure that since The Fall, men have always been pretty susceptible to falling into sin at the sight of a woman’s cleavage, but maybe not. I guess I wouldn’t know unless I lived and grew up back then. I would agree that some people are more, or less, susceptible to these temptations then others, but I think as a society/community there would have to be some sort of bare minimum for the sake of peace and lack of scandal.

… acodpiece was part of the dress for a man in the 16th century in Europe. Men of the higher class (court for example) wore stockings with shoes and the codpiece emphasised and enhanced the male genitalia… The modern counterpart is the cricketer’s box used as protective armour against a ball in the cods if you like…

 

[GratefulLiving]

Thanks for the reply. Two things though. First, what is a codpiece? Second, I’m not so sure I can agree that a low-cut dress can be modest in one century but not in another. I’m pretty sure that since The Fall, men have always been pretty susceptible to falling into sin at the sight of a woman’s cleavage, but maybe not. I guess I wouldn’t know unless I lived and grew up back then. I would agree that some people are more, or less, susceptible to these temptations then others, but I think as a society/community there would have to be some sort of bare minimum for the sake of peace and lack of scandal.

I can see how you say that. I would also tend to agree with you on this one. The only question that I have is can modesty and the temptation that comes with immodesty change?
For example, I recall hearing the story of a virgin saint that was being tortured. When she was thrown down to the ground and broke her leg (or legs?), she immediatly covered up her heal (so as not to be a snare for men) instead of worrying about her legs. If that was considered, and was indeed, a temptation for men back then, then I would be tempted to believe that what “turns” (sorry about that…I lack a better word) a man on can change with time, and what they are exposed to. I guarentee, though we men are weak, I think we could all agree that it will take a bit more than a heal to…
I also think I heard a statement by St. Ignatious Loyola that would seem t support this ascertion: it had to do with the fact that something can cease to be immodest over time and no grave sin is a by product of that thing. He said that the people that introduced the fashion will be heald accountable because when they introduced it…it was immodest, but that after time and exposure, that fashion will not be as near a temptation to sin as it was years earlier. Could it be the same with pants?

I hope I explain myself somewhat understandable Let me know what you all think.

 

[tcraig]

Thanks for the reply. Two things though. First, what is a codpiece? Second, I’m not so sure I can agree that a low-cut dress can be modest in one century but not in another. I’m pretty sure that since The Fall, men have always been pretty susceptible to falling into sin at the sight of a woman’s cleavage, but maybe not. I guess I wouldn’t know unless I lived and grew up back then. I would agree that some people are more, or less, susceptible to these temptations then others, but I think as a society/community there would have to be some sort of bare minimum for the sake of peace and lack of scandal.

Here is a famous portrait, Titian’s Rannucio Farnese, that illustrates a codpiece.

As far as visible cleavage, one must take care to remember that it is only in recent years that women’s breasts have been viewed in a purely sexual manner, totally disassociating them from their original function - that of nourishing infants.Here is a page that has taken the time to compile numerous images of Our Lady as a nursing mother.

While I have no doubt that men have always been beguiled to some degree by the female form, it is clear when viewing early art that visible cleavage was often common. Even the Mona Lisa has cleavage. Here is a portrait from Hans Holbein the Younger of his wife and children. One could hardly say that this is a “sexual” picture in any way (it’s actually quite sad) but the woman displays quite a bit in the chest area.

As we have become more industrialized and edge further away from our agrarian past, we tend to become more “hung up” on sex and the body. Anyone who has grown up or lived any time on a farm knows that life itself is very sexual. Additionally, in the United States we have a strong puritanical past that influences us to this day. In Europe (where I currently live) historically Catholic countries do not display anything near the obsession with “covering up” that Americans do.

 

[cam100]

I also think I heard a statement by St. Ignatious Loyola that would seem t support this ascertion: it had to do with the fact that something can cease to be immodest over time and no grave sin is a by product of that thing. He said that the people that introduced the fashion will be heald accountable because when they introduced it…it was immodest, but that after time and exposure, that fashion will not be as near a temptation to sin as it was years earlier. Could it be the same with pants?

I hope I explain myself somewhat understandable Let me know what you all think.

I think you are exactly right. If I recall correctly, St. Thomas Aquinas said the same thing. It is not the exposure of the body in itself which is evil, otherwise bathing and physical exams would be forbidden. The sin lies in the intention and the likelihood that the exposure will cause sinful thoughts in another. Unlike most sins, this one is focused on the perceptions of others, which vary among time, place, and culture.

 

[Joannm]

Here is a famous portrait, Titian’s Rannucio Farnese, that illustrates a codpiece.

As far as visible cleavage, one must take care to remember that it is only in recent years that women’s breasts have been viewed in a purely sexual manner, totally disassociating them from their original function - that of nourishing infants.Here is a page that has taken the time to compile numerous images of Our Lady as a nursing mother.

While I have no doubt that men have always been beguiled to some degree by the female form, it is clear when viewing early art that visible cleavage was often common. Even the Mona Lisa has cleavage. Here is a portrait from Hans Holbein the Younger of his wife and children. One could hardly say that this is a “sexual” picture in any way (it’s actually quite sad) but the woman displays quite a bit in the chest area.

As we have become more industrialized and edge further away from our agrarian past, we tend to become more “hung up” on sex and the body. Anyone who has grown up or lived any time on a farm knows that life itself is very sexual. Additionally, in the United States we have a strong puritanical past that influences us to this day. In Europe (where I currently live) historically Catholic countries do not display anything near the obsession with “covering up” that Americans do.

Thank you for the link to Mary nursing Jesus. I have a 19th Century icon from Crete of Mary nursing Jesus. It is quite amusing that the breast looks like it is coming out of Mary’s shoulder and it tiny, but I know that icons are not meant to be realistic. I have it displayed in my living room.

 

[GratefulLiving]

Here is a famous portrait, Titian’s Rannucio Farnese, that illustrates a codpiece.

As far as visible cleavage, one must take care to remember that it is only in recent years that women’s breasts have been viewed in a purely sexual manner, totally disassociating them from their original function - that of nourishing infants.Here is a page that has taken the time to compile numerous images of Our Lady as a nursing mother.

While I have no doubt that men have always been beguiled to some degree by the female form, it is clear when viewing early art that visible cleavage was often common. Even the Mona Lisa has cleavage. Here is a portrait from Hans Holbein the Younger of his wife and children. One could hardly say that this is a “sexual” picture in any way (it’s actually quite sad) but the woman displays quite a bit in the chest area.

As we have become more industrialized and edge further away from our agrarian past, we tend to become more “hung up” on sex and the body. Anyone who has grown up or lived any time on a farm knows that life itself is very sexual. Additionally, in the United States we have a strong puritanical past that influences us to this day. In Europe (where I currently live) historically Catholic countries do not display anything near the obsession with “covering up” that Americans do.

I totally agree. I took a few minutes and looked at some of the portraits, and none of them struck me as suggestive or immodest. Rather, they struck me as simple and somewhat refined in nature. Good post!

 

[bear06]

Usually anything taken to excess is a bad thing. Alcohol can be perfectly fine with your dinner but taken to excess or taken by someone who is prone to taking it to excess, it can be something entirely different.

Intending on getting rid of your femininity is not a good thing. That said, pants in and of themselves do not necessarily do this nor more than a kilt dashes a man’s masculinity. My husband wouldn’t be caught dead in my pants.

I always found it interesting that the Cardinal Siri letter was not addressed to the public (in fact he specifically says so). So, to say that a pope addressed it to women would be incorrect. In fact, it would probably also be wrong to assume that the good cardinal addressed to women.

And, I’m sorry, the idea that pants are more detrimental than a mini-skirt is silly. Methinks the bishop has never seen the reaction of a boy seeing a girl wearing one vs. the reaction of a girl wearing pants (and yes, Gerard, I read why he says that, I still disagree).

 

[Conservative]

Hey fello trads (and those of you that are not I came accross a letter by Bishop Williamson (SSPX…I know) about women and modesty, and wondered what other people might think about it. I feel as if I may be going off the deep end here, but he seems rather strict on this one. To me, most of what he expresses is more based on personal opinion rather than deffinative, infallable papal teaching. To my knowledge, no pope has ever openly stated that women cannot wear pants. Many have exhorted women to think very carefully about their modesty (which I totally agree with), but nothing deffinative. In fact, I read an article at Fisheaters.com in which a pope actually told women that it (wearing pants) would not impede their salvation.

Am I going crazy here, or is it possible to have different opinions on this and still practice modesty? …
…

I’m not a follower of Bishop Williamspon. But I’ve struggled with this issue for years - after wearing slacks & shorts and then reading the Marylike Modesty pamphlet - giving them up and for awhile vascillating on them. There’s a Marylike Standards pamphlet, which I believe, dates to about 1948 or '49. I have not heard anything definitive that I can recall from either a Pope or priest at pulpit. However, the pamphlet does mention wearing loose-fitting pants for sports or shorts that cover the knee (again, not literal translation).

I believe that St. Padre Pio had commented that women should burn their pants (not a literal quote, so you’d have to research it).

Interestingly, we could conjecture here - that a Pope wouldn’t make a decree on this because in some countries (India or Pakistan??? - pls correct me, if wrong), women do wear snug-fitting pants but under a tunic-like garment - apparently, a cultural dress. For this reason, I SURE wouldn’t mind hearing the Pope issue something saying women could wear pants, in good conscience, provided we wore tunic tops, as well.

But there’s a quote in the Bible that reads roughly as follows: Men who dress like women or women who dress like men are an abomination to God. It seems we need to take things in context - Jesus wore a full length tunic. So did women then. Now, not only do secular men wear pants but priests wear cassocks (???) It gets confusing in light of the biblical quote unless the Bible is referring to homosexuality.

 

[lucybeebee]

Maybe I’m taking the concept too literally, but the phrase “Mary-like modesty” confuses me. I can’t imagine what Mary, who lived in 1st century Palestine would wear today. It just doesn’t make sense. She lived in a very particular place and time and I’m unable to take her out of it to figure out what kind of clothing she would or would not approve of. Maybe I’m just slow…

 

[Conservative]

Maybe I’m taking the concept too literally, but the phrase “Mary-like modesty” confuses me. I can’t imagine what Mary, who lived in 1st century Palestine would wear today. It just doesn’t make sense. She lived in a very particular place and time and I’m unable to take her out of it to figure out what kind of clothing she would or would not approve of. Maybe I’m just slow…

No, you’re not slow - but I think it’s just an expression that means women (Catholic ones especially) are supposed to be conservative in their dress - not wearing sinfully revealing clothes, etc., just because society dictates. Let’s face it, some of today’s fashions have so little fabric in their styles - it’s a wonder they can make a dollar on the item. (Women don’t think of that either - we’re being led by the nose just because a designer sends the latest pricey model down a runway, and then forget all those “pro-choicers”. Hey, let’s tell them we want a “choice” !

The Marylike Modesty pamphlet / expression I referred to doesn’t ask that women wear veils all day either, which was the fashion of Our Lady’s time. It gives guidelines as to modesty - not overexposing ourselves…I’m no angel - I miss jeans, slacks (hanging in my closet), sleeveless items and lower cut necklines - but I try.

 

[brigid12]

I can see how you say that. I would also tend to agree with you on this one. The only question that I have is can modesty and the temptation that comes with immodesty change?
For example, I recall hearing the story of a virgin saint that was being tortured. When she was thrown down to the ground and broke her leg (or legs?), she immediatly covered up her heal (so as not to be a snare for men) instead of worrying about her legs. If that was considered, and was indeed, a temptation for men back then, then I would be tempted to believe that what “turns” (sorry about that…I lack a better word) a man on can change with time, and what they are exposed to. I guarentee, though we men are weak, I think we could all agree that it will take a bit more than a heal to…
I also think I heard a statement by St. Ignatious Loyola that would seem t support this ascertion: it had to do with the fact that something can cease to be immodest over time and no grave sin is a by product of that thing. He said that the people that introduced the fashion will be heald accountable because when they introduced it…it was immodest, but that after time and exposure, that fashion will not be as near a temptation to sin as it was years earlier. Could it be the same with pants?

I hope I explain myself somewhat understandable Let me know what you all think.

I worked in a women’s clothing store in the early 70s when midis came in style and since I got a discount, wore them to school. One of my friends (totally platonic, we both looked to each other like our own sibling) was a pretty popular guy with the girls. He said, after I’d been wearing midis for a month or so, “I think I’m starting to think that seeing knees [remember, this was right after the fad of mini-skirts] is sexy!” This shows how quickly something can become either sexy or not.