The Blessed Virgin said women shouldn't wear pants?

[estesbob]

What about the M. C. Hammer pants that men use to wear in the late 80s/early 90s? They looked more like skirts than pants.

Those were worn by the men who were turned into homosexuals by their mother wearing pants.

 

[otjm]

So you do agree that in some places of the world, that pants are men’s apparel. As can be easily seen from the fact that in those places of the world, if a lady is directed to an area for a restroom, and she sees two doors, one of which has a figure with pants, and the other of which has a figure with a skirt, then she will always choos the door with the figure with the skirt. This is true in at least, the whole western hemisphere and Europe. So pants are then men’s apparel in those areas. Now let’s see what Scripture says:
Deut 22:5
“A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God.”
What is the meaning of the term abomination, except that it is something quite seriously wrong?

If you want to play a game of quoting Deuteronomy, then please explain why other sections of it are ignored by the Church today. Your arguement is on the level of Sola Scriptura; if that is where you are coming from, then I would suggest you keep traveling, as you have not arrived at the New Testament yet.

On the other hand, if you are just proof-texting, and quoting out of context, then there truly may be no hope…

 

[otjm]

To clarify, I personally am opposed to pants more because of the anti-woman mentality behind it.

Oh, ok, maybe this is the real issue. You just haven’t met very many feminine women.

You need to get out into the world a bit more; but then, if you are meeting women with your mind already made up, I guess that wouldn’t make much difference, would it? Perception becomes rality, never mind the facts…

Anti woman? You have a very interesting image of what a woman is… but then, you also have a very interesting image of what morality is, too.

 

[otjm]

What does that have to do with the quote of mine you gave? Dear, nobody is using bathrooms signs as infallible anything, simply as an observation. My comment was that the sign is if fact, as opposed to what otjm said, in other countries. If you’re going to make sarcastic comments in your own Christian way, please let it match the post you’re mocking.

Sorry, but I have been abroad in places you haven’t gone. No signs indicating separate sex bathrooms; your signs are by no means universal.

 

[otjm]

It makes the “man’s world” more available to women. This mentality as wrong as it suggests that a woman is nothing unless she does what a man does. There’s no pride these days in being a woman, a feminine woman. A woman these days, to get any respect in the eyes of the world, has to be very manly.

That is, only if you choose to narrowly define “feminine” as “not wearing pants”. That may be your definition. It isf, hhowever, rather narrow and not based in reality, but only in your definition of reality. Just because you define reality as such and such does not make it so.

 

[otjm]

My mother wore pants and I love men? You, though…from what you say it seems like the better phrase would be: I obviously **lust **after girls. I’m basing this on your comment (among others) on your post regarding Rosie and Nicole.

I don’t think he is exhibiting any signs of lust. Perhaps you don’t understand his humor (others appear to have understood it); but nothing he has said indicates an issue with lust on his part.

 

[bobzills]

Your arguement is on the level of Sola Scriptura; if that is where you are coming from, then I would suggest you keep traveling, as you have not arrived at the New Testament yet.

On the other hand, if you are just proof-texting, and quoting out of context, then there truly may be no hope…

You might tell that to the Catholic p;riest Father Kunkel, who comes to the same conclusion that it is an abomination for women to wear pants. And this is not in any way contradicted by the New Testatment.
Oh, and one more thing - you might quit your ignorant ad hominem insults as you are attempting to make an argument.

 

[Indyann]

You might tell that to the Catholic p;riest Father Kunkel, who comes to the same conclusion that it is an abomination for women to wear pants. And this is not in any way contradicted by the New Testatment.
Oh, and one more thing - you might quit your ignorant ad hominem insults as you are attempting to make an argument.

would be hard to tell that to Father Kunkel, as he died back in the sixties.

 

[Sure]

You might tell that to the Catholic p;riest Father Kunkel, who comes to the same conclusion that it is an abomination for women to wear pants. And this is not in any way contradicted by the New Testatment.
Oh, and one more thing - you might quit your ignorant ad hominem insults as you are attempting to make an argument.

If Father Kunkel didn’t want women to wear pants, then why did he write this when he was Director of the Fatima Crusade in 1969:

IN RESPONSE TO THE PLEA OF OUR LADY OF FATIMA FOR ABSOLUTE MODESTY IN DRESS AND TO HELP PREVENT THE COUNTLESS SINS CAUSED BY IMMODEST DRESS, ESPECIALLY IN THE SUMMER TIME, I SHALL EARNESTLY STRIVE TO CARRY OUT THIS PROGRAM:

  1. To refrain entirely from wearing "shorts" of any type, whether at home or in public.

  2. To refuse to wear other types of scanty wear, including such things as sun-suits, and such outfits that expose the shoulders, breast, back, or midriff; likewise to avoid sheer or transparent outfits, tight dresses, tight sweaters, and tight slacks; and to wear only such skirts that go sufficiently below the knees to safeguard modesty in all normal postures and movements.

**  3. To limit my necessary recreational or work garb only to such pants-type garments that reach below the knees and are not tight - preferably full-length ample slacks. **
  4. To be particularly careful to dress modestly and respectfully for church, and for all sacred services and sacred places, including parish grounds; to encourage others always to dress with Mary-like modesty, without fear of being "unpopular"; to follow the wishes of Our Immaculate Lady rather than the decrees of pagan fashion dictators.

  REMEMBER: Modesty in dress helps safeguard the virtue of purity and is demanded by the moral law of God. The above norms are based on this unchangeable moral law and on Christian tradition. Immodest dress is immoral and sinful, and is a matter of confession. We have reason to believe that many souls are now in hell because of the thoughtlessness of girls who dress immodestly. Out of love for Christ and His Immaculate Mother, and for the sake of others who are struggling to be pure, PLEASE DRESS MODESTLY!

EVEN your esteemed Fr. Kunkel approved of pants!

 

[otjm]

You might tell that to the Catholic p;riest Father Kunkel, who comes to the same conclusion that it is an abomination for women to wear pants. And this is not in any way contradicted by the New Testatment.
Oh, and one more thing - you might quit your ignorant ad hominem insults as you are attempting to make an argument.

That wasn’t ad hominem; I am eminently capable of that should I choose. It was a strong suggestion. As to the New Testament comment which you obviously do not understand, the New Testament relieves the Church from following each and every law which the Jews came up with. That includes a lot out of Deuternonomy.

It is you who have decided, apparently with the help of Father Kunkel, that you know more about fashion based on a text that is 3000 years old, give or take a few, rather than paying attention to what Rome has said, which is that they do not have an issue with women wearing pants in general. Father Kunkel had an opinion; that does not mean that his opinion was reflected by accepted moral theology as provided by the teaching arm - the Magisterium - of the Church. Now, added to Father Kunkel, of whom we know nothing other than this selective opinion, we are urged to follow a holy and orthodox excommunicated bishop.

You are the one who has trouble following what the Church says is or is not acceptible. It is not my issue, and I am curious why it is yours.

It may be your opinion that pants to not look “feminine” on a woman, and that is your perception (and one, in my own experience, which would deny the true femininity of many women I have met who wear pants). If you wish to deny that a woman can be feminine in pants, feel free. But to argue that it is somehow immoral or forbidden by the Church is flat out ludicrous. The Church doesn’t say that.

My perception of you is that you are looking for someone in the Church to back you own opinion of fashion. The fact that a priest could say that is sufficient to you, never mind that it is only his personal opinion and not based in the teaching of the Church.

Frankly, if the issue is sexual morality, it has been my observation that men react in a lustful fashion much more to women who are in dresses or skirts than they do to women in pants. But when men react lustfully towards women, whether in pants or otherwise, I have found it to be the case that they do so more based on an initial disrespect for women within themselves than they do for the actual way a woman is dressed. That is not to say that a woman cannot be dressed in a seductive way that invites a lustful reaction; but rather that the source of lust is in the disrespect the man has for the woman initially.

But disrespect can come in a number of forms; and one of them, I suggest, is making a preconceived judgement about a woman based on the way she is dressed; and there seems to be a bit of that here in the comments made about women who dress in pants, to wit: they are not feminine.

 

[OneAugustKnight]

This thread is really funny so I am going to give it 5 stars.

I used to think the pro-skirt crowd at my local parish was on to something. After all, my husband can’t keep his hands off of me when I wear a skirt.

Then I started noticing that these women who were advocating dressing well for Mass would wear denim skirts with no nylons and birkenstock sandals. It seems kind of casual and sloppy to me, but that’s okay, they can wear it. How is that different than blue jeans and flip flops though? Other than blue jeans hide your unshaved legs, I don’t see a difference in dignity.

Plus these women’s poor husband’s were just so ticked off about their 3 year olds wearing skirts. The mothers wouldn’t put shorts under them so the little girls were constantly flashing their panties. The fathers were always so upset about it.

 

[latinmasslover]

Since when do Catholics worry about having the respect of the world? This still doesn’t answer my question–what are some concrete examples that wearing pants is anti-woman?

What are examples of “men’s work” that women now do because they wear pants? What shouldn’t we be allowed to do as women?

Who cares what the world says? That was my whole point.

Again, it’s the mentality that I oppose. I’d give examples here but then a huge argument is going to result, we’ll all be off topic, and the thread will be closed.

The argument that women are more susceptible to sexual harassment is not convincing. That danger has always existed, it still exists now, and more often (and most women are wearing pants). That particular argument doesn’t stand.

 

[teachccd]

**My, do we ever have a lot of time on our hands!! **teachccd…

 

[latinmasslover]

I think you should substitute “the world” with “women” in your statements. I know men who desire for their wives (or future wives) to stay home and raise the children, to have her ultimate goal be having and raising a family, not a career.

I meant the “world” as in secular society. Most religions (not necessarily it’s adherents), Christian or not, have respect and/or encourage women to be women. I’m sure you’ll agree that the “world” (secular society) has encouraged women to get out of that womanly thinking.

 

[latinmasslover]

yeah-the number of people who think women should not wear pants is just ENORMOUS not.

Well, I’m Roman Catholic. Excuse me for not following the crowd, which is of course, the *truly *Christ-like thing to do.

 

[latinmasslover]

http://www.escapefromparadise.com/Images/drudge_flashing_light.gif NewsFlash… That was humor. not seen in this forum since 1962.

Based on other posts in other threads, I highly doubt that.

 

[latinmasslover]

It would appear to me that they would end up with 1 foot in hell and 1 foot in heaven. On the average they would feel fine

Note for Latinmasslover: this was a joke

Any other post that wasn’t supposed to be taken seriously?

 

[Julian_Peters]

Thank you to all who have participated. This thread is now closed.