The Blessed Virgin said women shouldn't wear pants?

[Genesis315]

Richard Williamson is probably the most radical of the SSPX bishops. There was just as much homosexuality in previous cultures, such as that of the Greeks–it’s part of man’s fallen nature, not clothing style…

 

[estesbob]

This is from Bishop Richard Williamson:
"Again, something is going profoundly wrong when men in large numbers turn from women to men, and women from men to women. Might not women wearing trousers be contributing to this blurring and confusion of the sexes? In any case this upheaval, this earthquake in the realm of morals, is the correct back-drop against which to view the arguments for women’s trousers, only this time the appeal will be to the men.

“Men, let us suppose that your womenfolk need to go skiing, sailing, mountaineering, Operation Rescuing, engineering, home repairing, parachuting, etc., etc., and that for these activities they absolutely – or for modesty – require trousers. Nevertheless, if with trousers they gain the activity but lose their femininity, is not the price too great? Today, you want to go mountaineering. Tomorrow, she wants to go with you. The day after she loses her womanliness. The day after that, your son turns to his own kind. Obviously, that is to fast forward the process involved, but the fact remains that when women are allowed, encouraged or pushed into activities in any way diminishing their womanliness or their modesty, they are being betrayed.”

This has got to be a satire! Women wearing pants leads men into homosexual behavior!!!

 

[latinmasslover]

Richard Williamson is probably the most radical of the SSPX bishops. There was just as much homosexuality in previous cultures, such as that of the Greeks–it’s part of man’s fallen nature, not clothing style…

Cannibalism is a part of other cultures too; where do we draw the line?

 

[latinmasslover]

This has got to be a satire! Women wearing pants leads men into homosexual behavior!!!

It makes perfect sense, unless you support cross-dressing. It’s the mentality behind the pants that make it wrong, a mentality that tells women that they are nothing unless they are men. It’s a part of the feminist movement, a movement that has done nothig but destroy the beauty of what a woman is…when the woman goes, the family goes, when the family goes, society goes.

 

[latinmasslover]

Thank you. That was the funniest thing I have read all day!

The headline should be “Bishop Williamson says, ‘Women who wear pants make their sons gay!’”

Bishop Williamson is a real hoot…makes me wonder if he has a tin-foil lined mitre so the aliens and the Vatican can’t spy on his brain waves!

It’s very unwise to mock a holy and orthodox bishop.

 

[latinmasslover]

Let’s try the reverse - what group dresses with approximation to how May appears in visions? Women in India (primarily, Hindus), and Islamic women.

So what is your point?

At least their women don’t look like cheap pieces of meat.

 

[NoxSineStellae]

If I do become Catholic someday, I’ll be able to say it was because of Mary. I feel a great devotion to her, even though I don’t know very much about the religion.

I also almost exclusively wear skirts and dresses, as I find pants uncomfortable. And I have very narrow hips so I always have to wear a belt, which I hate. All my skirts are at least knee-length, and not tight (sometimes the tops of my dresses are a little showy, but I’m trying to be good Anyway, the amount of sexual attention I receive from wearing loose skirts is sometimes enough to make me stop. Not talking about my husband - though he tells me constantly how sexy they are - but just guys on the street. The catcalls and looks go WAAAY up with a modest skirt, even with a modest top. Yeah, more doors are opened for me, but mostly by guys who want to check out my rear (again, not tight clothing at all, my husband says the loose drape over the curve is very appealing, more so than my tight jeans, that leave nothing to the imagination)

I guess my point is, I think it’s weird to declare pants for women wrong across the board, when they obviously turn a lot of guys on way more than is appropriate, and pants can look perfectly classy and modest and sweet.

And I’ll never forget what a VERY conservative Christian girl in my class once told me - that in their circles, women had to wear skirts, and nightgowns only, so that they would be constantly and instantly “available” to their husbands - pants would take away his “rights”

 

[fin]

quarter sleeved shirts are those up to the elbow right?

it also said that short sleeves are not allowed.

if skirts should be 8 inches below the knee, why not say “ankle length”? it’s so much easier to say.

 

[estesbob]

It makes perfect sense, unless you support cross-dressing. It’s the mentality behind the pants that make it wrong, a mentality that tells women that they are nothing unless they are men. It’s a part of the feminist movement, a movement that has done nothig but destroy the beauty of what a woman is…when the woman goes, the family goes, when the family goes, society goes.

So you think that women wearing pants leads her children to be homosexuals?? It would seem like many would like us to institute a Catholic version of SHI’I LAW in the United States

 

[Genesis315]

Cannibalism is a part of other cultures too; where do we draw the line?

This comment makes no sense in regards to what I said. I was not saying homosexuality was acceptable because it was in other cultures. I was saying that it was present in other cultures despite the fact they they had different modes of dress–thus, pants are not the cause of homosexual behavior.

 

[bobzills]

It makes perfect sense, unless you support cross-dressing. It’s the mentality behind the pants that make it wrong, a mentality that tells women that they are nothing unless they are men. It’s a part of the feminist movement, a movement that has done nothig but destroy the beauty of what a woman is…when the woman goes, the family goes, when the family goes, society goes.

Correct. Father Kunkel has stated quite clearly that women are not to wear pants. Of course, this is not a prohibition against wearing pants that applies only to Catholics. As the webpages above indcate, it is also wrong for Protestant women to wear pants. And further, it is wrong for Jewish women as is seen from:
burns.dcb.du.edu/cultural_issues.asp?id=37
Among ultra Orthodox Jews, men wear black pants and jackets over white buttoned-up shirts with black hats; women do not wear pants and they cover their heads with a scarf.
Or see: catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2004/05/16/the-law-and-economics-of-wigs
“Jewish law prescribes a strict code of modesty for both men and women, but the law is especially strict for women. In the presence of men (except for their husbands), Orthodox women must wear sleeves to their elbows, skirts (no pants) past their knees, high necklines to their collar bones, and must cover their hair if they are married.”

 

[otjm]

It is very seriously wrong for women to wear pants. This is because, according to Father Kunkel: “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.”
Please see:
lffa-ollmpc.com/standards.htm

And who anointed Fr. Kunkel as arbiter of fashion?

Just because someone is ordained, does not mean they have been endowed with wisdom of all affairs - or any affairs, for that matter. Deuteronomy was written how many thousands of years ago? And considering that at one point in history women wore pants and men wore robes, and the most likely correct translation of the passage is that women whould not wear men’s clothes (it is debatable that pants had even been invented at this point in time), quoting Deuteronomy to make a point is at best lame.

 

[steveandersen]

It makes perfect sense, unless you support cross-dressing. It’s the mentality behind the pants that make it wrong, a mentality that tells women that they are nothing unless they are men. It’s a part of the feminist movement, a movement that has done nothig but destroy the beauty of what a woman is…when the woman goes, the family goes, when the family goes, society goes.

Scotsmen wear kilts
Malay and Indonesian men wear sarongs
In East Africa Men wear the Kanga
In India and Bangladesh they call it the Lungi
The Greek army still has the Fustanella as part of their ceremonial uniform

Jesus Himself probably never wore trousers

Women in south and central Asia have been wearing Churidar trousers for centuries.

So the notion that style of dress is an indicator of morality and/or political affiliation is specious at best.

Yes some people treat clothes that way but the average person in the street wants clothing that is comfortable and practical.

My wife looks very good in a dress or in pants. Her choice of what to wear is in no way an indication that she is “nothing” and she is definately not a man.

 

[otjm]

At least their women don’t look like cheap pieces of meat.

The only cheap piece of meat I have seen was in the buthcer’s case.

Saris may be beautiful; so is the Ao Diai (sorry, phonetic spelling). Burkahs look somehwere between hilarious and ridiculous.

 

[Genesis315]

It’s very unwise to mock a holy and orthodox bishop.

While I agree we shouldn’t mock people in general no matter who they are, it would be wrong to call Williamson a holy bishop:

“If one loves the Pope, one does not stop to ask the precise limits to which this duty of obedience extends… one does not seek to restrict the domain within which he can or should make his wishes felt; one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for **there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope.”
**
(Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912)

 

[bobzills]

My wife looks very good in a dress or in pants. Her choice of what to wear is in no way an indication that she is “nothing” and she is definately not a man.

Women might look good to a man in tight fitting pants but this is not what Father Kunkel or what the Bible recommends. The Bible 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."

 

[otjm]

Thank you. That was the funniest thing I have read all day!

The headline should be “Bishop Williamson says, ‘Women who wear pants make their sons gay!’”

Bishop Williamson is a real hoot…makes me wonder if he has a tin-foil lined mitre so the aliens and the Vatican can’t spy on his brain waves!

Ah, but aren’t you presuming he has brain waves upon which to spy?

 

[steveandersen]

Women might look good to a man in tight fitting pants but this is not what Father Kunkel or what the Bible recommends. The Bible 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."

That doesn’t say “pants” now does it?
My wife buys her outfits from the women’s department thank you and if you suggested that the Greek Evzones in their fustanella or the Black Watch in their kilts are in anyway wearing women’s attire you might get a vigorous demonstration of their manliness.

 

[latinmasslover]

Ah, but aren’t you presuming he has brain waves upon which to spy?

How Christian of you.

 

[estesbob]

Women might look good to a man in tight fitting pants but this is not what Father Kunkel or what the Bible recommends. The Bible 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."

Where in Scripture does is say pants are men’s apparel?

Do you really think that the accepted fashion for all time was set two thousand years before Christ was born?