SSPX and women in positions of authority

[whatevergirl]

A while back on EWTN there was a psychologist who came to the conclusion that homosexuality in modern times is related to the relationship of the children with the Father. I can’t remember his name but I found his position completely convincing.

Now, you state that the roles of men and women are “evolving” what do you mean? I see the roles of men and women as “devolving” into a gender neutral soup.

Agreed. And St. Paul says that in the first chapter of Romans that it’s after breaking the first commandment that God lets them slip further into their sins. This can be tied in with my premise that the attack on the genders is an attack on the family and ultimately, the Trinity.

Can’t agree with you more on this.

Aren’t referees role models? Keepers of order? Authority figures?

I don’t blame women at all for any of this. (Where did you get the impression that I did? ) The women are the victims as much as any man in this societal degradation.

I want women to keep and maintain their feminine identity. I want men to keep and maintain their masculine identity. I want children to develop their identity without confusion on this matter.

Unfortunately too many adults have already imbibed in this mentality and don’t even recognize it until they see it in more extreme examples. They don’t see it when it is a relatively small problem.

I don’t really look at referees as role models, per se…I would imagine all adults can serve as role models, no matter the ‘role.’ Janitors can be great role models for kids, as well, if they do their job to the best of their ability, and show that hard work pays off. I use janitors in this example, because they are not in authoritative type positions, typically.

All else I agree with you, Gerard. Not that this forum is about everyone agreeing, but now that you have tied everything back to the original topic–it’s a very insightful perspective you have–thanks for taking the time to always reply.

 

[Margarite]

Father Kunkel takes a more traditional approach to modesty in women’s clothing and dress.

lffa-ollmpc.com/standards.htm
As Father points out, modesty in dress excludes women from wearing “pants, slacks, culottes, jeans, shorts and such, as they have been proven to be men’s attire, and harmfull for women and society at large, and against God’s command in Deut. 22:5.”

I don’t know about you, but I would tend to take the word of a great saint and pope over some priest. I think that Father Kunkel is entitled to his opinion, but I disagree with him. And I happen to agree with Pope St. Nicholas I. I mean he is a saint, he was a pope, he spoke specifically about women wearing pants. I don’t know how much more clear you can get.

I don’t think that this is really true today. and in today’s world because when a woman cross dresses like a man, it can exacerbate some of the problems facing our society today. For example, according to a non-Catholic site:

"Go to your local mall and watch the teenaged girls dressing and carrying themselves like gangster boys! Baggy jeans, t-shirts, short messy hair, pierced body parts! When we smudge the clear lines of the differences in the sexes, this is where we end up! Open a magazine that has women’s business-wear in it. You’ll see slightly feminized men’s business suits. Even the shoes look like men’s! If it’s a business suit with a skirt, then the skirt is short and sexy and the rest looks manly! We have a wonderful medley of masculinity AND immodesty all packaged nicely for today’s modern career woman!

I agree that there is a problem with girls who think they are boys, or who think it is “cool” to act like boys, and boys who are strange enough to act like girls, but I don’t believe that this has anything to do with clothing, but rather to do with parenting. 98% of all children who are mixed up and who dress strangely have messed up home lives. If you look that the Goths, they are the kids who wear giant black jeans, dye their hair black, wear black make-up, etc. (this is regardless of gender) those are the kids who have parents who are on their third marriage, whose parents get drunk every night, whose parents sleep around, whose parents gamble, whose parents abuse them, etc. If you see the kids (regardless of gender) wearing baggy pants, pierced all over, etc. These kids (regardless of gender) are victims of their parent’s sins and selfishness. When you see girl’s in short mini skirts and low shirts, these girls want attention, their parents are too selfish to give it to them, so these girls try to get it in other ways. When you see boys acting up or doing weird stuff to attract girl’s attentions, they are seeking attention too. When you see kids that dress like they have not changed their clothes in weeks, and as if they don’t want to be seen, these kids are also ignored by their parents, but they have dealt with it in a different way.

Dressing strangely is not a result of fashion. Kids, regardless of gender, dress strangely because “Mommy or Daddy didn’t love me.” because “Mommy or Daddy wasn’t there.” because “Mommy or Daddy didn’t care.”
I think it is not the fault of the clothes, but rather the fault of the parents.

Now regarding pants being masculine. I am wearing a really nice pair of brown pants they are not tight, but not loose either. They flair at the bottom and have a huge cuff. The waist does not have belt loops, but is a very wide band with no buttons. Now if any man wore these pants they would have to be homosexual (gay). They would look totally ridiculous. These are definitely not masculine. My shoes are high heeled (I am only 5’3" so I always wear heels) and also very feminine. When I wear jeans, they are always feminine jeans, they are not too tight, nor too loose. They fit nicely, they are feminine. I wear t-shirts because they are not tight and form fitting, and because if I stain or ruin them while working, they do not cost too much to replace. Also they do not creep up when I am working showing my back or stomach. It is just practical. It is a matter of upbringing. My parents have raised me to wear pants and be feminine. Some girls are raised to wear skirts and be masculine. Others are raised to wear pants and be masculine. It is just how a person is raised, not what they wear. How they are raised affects how they wear what they wear.
Yours Through Our Lady,
Margarite

 

[bobzills]

It is a matter of upbringing. My parents have raised me to wear pants and be feminine. …

Some parents raise their children in a fashion not approved by the Bible. As we read the word of God in the Bible, we learn more about what God wants and the way God wants us to dress.
lffa-ollmpc.com/standards.htm
As Father points out, modesty in dress excludes women from wearing “pants, slacks, culottes, jeans, shorts and such, as they have been proven to be men’s attire, and harmfull for women and society at large, and against God’s command in Deut. 22:5.”
This is not just the opinion of Father Kunkel. For example, consider the Orthodox Jewish interpretation: please see
users.aol.com/judaism/ask/archives/qh012.htm
“Jewish men and women are traditionally bound to dress modestly. There is no difference between what Jewish women are traditionally expected to wear in synagogue and what they are expected to wear in any other public place. Pants are considered by many communities to reveal the female form in an inappropriate way. There is also an explicit biblical commandment against cross-dressing, and many communities consider pants to be an example of “that which appurtaineth to a man”. There are actually practical differences between those who derive the prohibition from laws of modesty and those who derive it from laws of cross-dressing. For example, those who relate the prohibition to modesty would permit a female skier to wear pants underneath a skirt for protection from the elements.
In any case, it has nothing to with synagogue attendance. In orthodox communities, wearing a dress or skirt need not imply “dressing up”, since orthodox women wear dresses and skirts routinely."
Or consider the Notification Concerning Men’s Dress Worn by Women by Giuseppe Cardinal Siri:
olrl.org/virtues/pants.shtml
Also please see the article: In Praise of the Skirt
Donald P. Goodman III
gorpub.freeshell.org/praise.pdf
And see the letter from Bishop Williamson:
sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/September1-1991.htm

 

[Margarite]

Some parents raise their children in a fashion not approved by the Bible. As we read the word of God in the Bible, we learn more about what God wants and the way God wants us to dress.
lffa-ollmpc.com/standards.htm
As Father points out, modesty in dress excludes women from wearing “pants, slacks, culottes, jeans, shorts and such, as they have been proven to be men’s attire, and harmfull for women and society at large, and against God’s command in Deut. 22:5.”
This is not just the opinion of Father Kunkel. For example, consider the Orthodox Jewish interpretation: please see
users.aol.com/judaism/ask/archives/qh012.htm
“Jewish men and women are traditionally bound to dress modestly. There is no difference between what Jewish women are traditionally expected to wear in synagogue and what they are expected to wear in any other public place. Pants are considered by many communities to reveal the female form in an inappropriate way. There is also an explicit biblical commandment against cross-dressing, and many communities consider pants to be an example of “that which appurtaineth to a man”. There are actually practical differences between those who derive the prohibition from laws of modesty and those who derive it from laws of cross-dressing. For example, those who relate the prohibition to modesty would permit a female skier to wear pants underneath a skirt for protection from the elements.
In any case, it has nothing to with synagogue attendance. In orthodox communities, wearing a dress or skirt need not imply “dressing up”, since orthodox women wear dresses and skirts routinely."
Or consider the Notification Concerning Men’s Dress Worn by Women by Giuseppe Cardinal Siri:
olrl.org/virtues/pants.shtml
Also please see the article: In Praise of the Skirt
Donald P. Goodman III
gorpub.freeshell.org/praise.pdf
And see the letter from Bishop Williamson:
sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/September1-1991.htm

As I said before, I think these people have a right to their opinion, but I agree with Pope St. Nicholas I and unless Pope Benedict XVI says otherwise, I doubt that I will be convinced that pants on women are evil. Also, Bishop Williamson has absolutely no authority over me and in fact, he belongs to a schismatic group, so I would think twice before taking his advice. That would be like taking the advice of Luther when Luther was alive. The Jews follow many ancient traditions that the Catholic Church has deemed unnecessary, such as kosher, the working and walking only so much on the Sabbath, etc. So their view on clothing is nice, but does not convince me of anything except their view of clothing. Thanks, but until you tell me that Pope Benedict, or Pope John Paul II or some recent pope said that women cannot wear pants, I don’t see a reason not to. And that does not mean at Church, I agree that women should wear skirts at Sunday mass especially because dresses are the dressiest way for women to dress. Women do not look as dressy in pants. There is no other reason, people should dress in their best, and dresses/skirts are the dressiest that women can have, so dresses/skirts should be worn to mass. The dressiest for men is nice slacks, a nice collared shirt, a tie, a blazer. That is what they should wear. I think that a nice shirt and slacks are fine for most Sundays, just as a nice skirt and shirt are fine. GTG.

Yours Through Our Lady,
Margarite

 

[GerardP]

As I said before, I think these people have a right to their opinion, but I agree with Pope St. Nicholas .

Margarite,

Did you read the entire set of responses to the Bulgars? Would you agree with all of Pope Nicholas’ advice on all of those matters?

"As to whether a woman should stand in the church with her head veiled or unveiled, the Apostle teaches: If a woman prays or prophesies without her head veiled, she brings shame upon her own head; indeed, it is the same as if she is bald. For if a woman is not veiled, she might as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cropped or made bald, let her veil her head; and again he says: Hence **a woman should have a veil over her head because of the angels,I Cor. 11:10] i.e. the priests; and once again he says: Judge for yourselves: Is it fitting for an unveiled woman to pray to God? Doesn’t nature itself teach you that if a man tends his hair, it is to his shame; but if a woman tends her hair, it is to her glory, since her hair has been give to her as a veil. "

 

[GerardP]

The dressiest for men is nice slacks, a nice collared shirt, a tie, a blazer. That is what they should wear. I think that a nice shirt and slacks are fine for most Sundays, just as a nice skirt and shirt are fine.

Oh come on! You can’t mean that. What is wrong with a guy wanting to wear this classy little number? It’s very modest and maybe if the color was toned down some…

http://www.ldfashions.com/cally002.jpg

 

[Margarite]

Canon Law

The 1917 Code of Canon Law. canon 1262, stated,1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.

When the 1983 Code of Canon Law was promulgated this canon was not re-issued; indeed, canon 6, 1, abrogated it, along with every other canon of the 1917 Code not intentionally incorporated into the new legislation.Canon 61. When this Code goes into effect, the following are abrogated: (1) the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917; (2) other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescriptions of this Code, unless particular laws are otherwise expressly provided for; (3) any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See, unless they are contained in this Code; (4) other universal disciplinary laws dealing with a matter which is regulated ex integro by this Code. Thus, there is no longer any canonical obligation for women to wear a head-covering, much less the more specific veil.
ewtn.com/expert/answers/head_coverings_in_church.htm

As I said, unless the Church says I can’t wear pants, or I have to wear a veil, I will continue to wear pants and I will not wear a veil.
Yours Through Our Lady,
Margarite

 

[lak611]

Canon Law

The 1917 Code of Canon Law. canon 1262, stated,1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.

Interestingly enough, my mother and older people I know from my parish never remember men and women sitting separately in church, even in the 1940’s.

 

[GerardP]

Margarite,

Robert Sungenis absolutely demolished Colin Donovan’s explanation that you view as authoritative in a 3 page article.

catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/head-covering1.htm

Mr. Colin Donovan, Vice-President of Theology at EWTN, was asked by a patron whether women were required to wear veils. Citing the 1983 Code of Canon Law as his source, Mr. Donovan denied that women are required to wear veils. A CAI patron forwarded Mr. Donovan’s reply to us and asked if we would examine and critique Mr. Donovan’s position. Robert Sungenis decided to give a lengthy rebuttal to Mr. Donovan, using the same 1983 Code of Canon Law that Mr. Donovan used. In the end, you will see that women should still wear veils, and the Church teaching on this has not changed, and never will change.

…R. Sungenis: Mr. Donovan is making a lot of assumptions without proof or evidence from Canon Law. For example, the 1983 Code of Canon Law says the following about previous Codes of Canon Law, namely, the 1917 code:

Canon 20: “A later law abrogates, or derogates, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, in no way derogates from a particular or special law unless the law expressly provides otherwise.”

So here we see that Canon Law puts limits around itself in relation to previous Canon Law. In other words, the 1983 Code does not automatically “abrogate” an earlier law unless it “states so expressly,” makes a statement about that law which “is directly contrary to it,” or “reorders the entire matter.” None of these were done in the 1983 code regarding women wearing veils. Canon 21 adds even more force to Canon 20 as it says:

Canon 21: “In a case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them.”

In other words, if the present code of law does not mention anything about veils, and thus causes doubt in one’s mind, in that case, the 1983 code says no one can “presume” that the law requiring veils is not required. Instead, whatever the 1983 code says about women in general must be harmonized with the 1917 code.

Further, the 1983 code speaks of “Custom” as having the force of law. If wearing veils is considered a custom, then these canons apply. …

 

[lak611]

Margarite,

Robert Sungenis absolutely demolished Colin Donovan’s explanation that you view as authoritative in a 3 page article.

catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/head-covering1.htm

What about the requirement for men and women to sit separately in church? Why has nobody ever cared about that provision of the old Canon Law? Everybody always focuses on the head covering but even in the 1940’s, when the old Canon Law was in place, the men and women did not sit separately and no issue was made.

 

[Brother_John]

Off topic

as you wish, keep on bangin…that horse might not be dead yet, and I can still use a good laugh!

:banghead:

 

[GerardP]

What about the requirement for men and women to sit separately in church? Why has nobody ever cared about that provision of the old Canon Law? Everybody always focuses on the head covering but even in the 1940’s, when the old Canon Law was in place, the men and women did not sit separately and no issue was made.

I think it depends where you were. In the early 70’s we were still being separated at least in school.

It sounds like a good tradition and probably should be addressed by the Pope and bishops as a goal to achieve practically in the future, when an authentic Catholic culture returns.

 

[Joannm]

I think it depends where you were. In the early 70’s we were still being separated at least in school.

It sounds like a good tradition and probably should be addressed by the Pope and bishops as a goal to achieve practically in the future, when an authentic Catholic culture returns.

I am wondering…are you a married man?

 

[GerardP]

I am wondering…are you a married man?

Nope. Why do you ask?

 

[lak611]

What about the requirement for men and women to sit separately in church? Why has nobody ever cared about that provision of the old Canon Law? Everybody always focuses on the head covering but even in the 1940’s, when the old Canon Law was in place, the men and women did not sit separately and no issue was made.

I think it depends where you were. In the early 70’s we were still being separated at least in school.

It sounds like a good tradition and probably should be addressed by the Pope and bishops as a goal to achieve practically in the future, when an authentic Catholic culture returns.

I am wondering…are you a married man?

Nope. Why do you ask?

Would it be a good tradition to have husbands and wives sit separately in church? The old Code of Canon Law did not specify anything about husbands and wives sitting together. It simply said that men and women were supposed to sit separately. What about children? If only a father is Catholic, where should his daughters sit? The mother of the girls would probably not go to Mass if she was a non-Catholic. What about a Catholic mother who has a non-Catholic husband? If she has sons, where do they sit?

 

[GerardP]

Would it be a good tradition to have husbands and wives sit separately in church?

Possibly.

The old Code of Canon Law did not specify anything about husbands and wives sitting together. It simply said that men and women were supposed to sit separately.

I would think husbands and wives are men and women.

What about children? If only a father is Catholic, where should his daughters sit?

Children’s mass! Catholics should marry within the faith. If you are not in agreement on THE most important issue, you’ve got a major problem.

The mother of the girls would probably not go to Mass if she was a non-Catholic. What about a Catholic mother who has a non-Catholic husband? If she has sons, where do they sit?

Same place I sat. At the age of 6, I had an assigned place in the Church to sit on Sunday. My older brother and sisters were in different parts of the Church at the same mass.

 

[lak611]

Children’s mass! Catholics should marry within the faith. If you are not in agreement on THE most important issue, you’ve got a major problem.

Many of the posters on this forum are converts. They may have been Protestant or non-Christian when they got married to a fellow Protestant or non-Christian, but then they converted but their spouse did not. I do agree that Catholics should marry fellow Catholics, but many of the posters here at CAF are not cradle Catholics so this issue does exist. I also know people who are converts married to someone who did not convert.

Same place I sat. At the age of 6, I had an assigned place in the Church to sit on Sunday. My older brother and sisters were in different parts of the Church at the same mass.

My parents and older family members and friends of mine never had assigned seats in church for Sunday Mass unless they were singing in the choir. They only had assigned seats during daily Mass with their classes. Yes, they were required to attend daily Mass when they were in Catholic school, and the boys and girls did sit separately. For Sunday Mass, families sat together wherever they wanted to sit.

 

[cecilia97]

Many of the posters on this forum are converts. They may have been Protestant or non-Christian when they got married to a fellow Protestant or non-Christian, but then they converted but their spouse did not. I do agree that Catholics should marry fellow Catholics, but many of the posters here at CAF are not cradle Catholics so this issue does exist. I also know people who are converts married to someone who did not convert.

My parents and older family members and friends of mine never had assigned seats in church for Sunday Mass unless they were singing in the choir. They only had assigned seats during daily Mass with their classes. Yes, they were required to attend daily Mass when they were in Catholic school, and the boys and girls did sit separately. For Sunday Mass, families sat together wherever they wanted to sit.

While the Church recognizes the difficulties, it does NOT prohibit marriages of mixed faith couples. But Gerard has already told us he has some issues with the catechism.

Much of this thread is trying to be more Catholic than the Pope.

CCC 1634 Difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for marriage, when they succeed in placing in common what they have received from their respective communities, and learn from each other the way in which each lives in fidelity to Christ. But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They arise from the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. The spouses risk experiencing the tragedy of Christian disunity even in the heart of their own home. Disparity of cult can further aggravate these difficulties. Differences about faith and the very notion of marriage, but also different religious mentalities, can become sources of tension in marriage, especially as regards the education of children. The temptation to religious indifference can then arise.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Note:

This thread is closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.