Fr. Z endorses Esolen's latest article for The Catholic Thing
, praising him for another clear-eyed piece about effeminacy in the Church
. I love posts like that. Solving the problem of effeminacy in the Church - it's such an easy fix. Academics seem to have it all figured out.
So anyway, one would think these guys would be able to point out the origins of the problem - but they won't do it - because Esolen needs to keep his job. It's also more convenient to blame the homosexuals and the 'queering' of the Church. It is a problem of course, but it isn't the only problem...
Yesterday I came across a post shared by Janet Smith
on modesty in dress for Mass. Dr. Smith posted this image she shared from another FB page:
Subsequent comments were interesting, and in the defense of pants for women. I love posts like that - especially in contrast with posts such as Fr. Z's and Esolen's. Among other women responders, Rachel Lu also commented on Janet's post:
Rachel Lu I normally prefer for women to wear skirts and dresses to Mass (which is what I myself generally do) but not because slacks are *immodest*. They are not. And I think they should get a pass sometimes for non-Sunday Masses and maybe on very cold winter days.
Other's said they never knew anyone considered pants to be immodest.
Like I said, I love it when these discussions arise online. On one level because people pay too much attention to what other people wear to Mass - if you live in really big cities, no one cares or notices, because those in attendance can be so diverse. Small town minded folk pay a great deal of attention, and it's annoying to encounter them. That said - 'who am I to judge?' Better yet - 'who are they?' I digress.
Can pants be immodest? Yep. But there is another problem, maybe more serious and culture changing and directly related to the pansification of Catholic men. Two birds with one shot takes down both arguments. Women want to wear pants, women and men want a masculine clergy and liturgy, women want a greater role and influence in the Church. Women want what men are having...
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Or is there? Because everyone bitches about it. Trads and academics lament the gays and the limitations placed upon women who insist upon dressing and acting like men. (And I laugh!) It's true though - which is why I enjoy jumping on this subject with Cardinal Siri's notice against women wearing pants - or dressing like men. It seems more relevant today than ever when men's fashions are changing and becoming more effeminate than ever.
Women wearing men’s clothing tends to corrupt the relations between the sexes.
Cardinal Siri spoke out against it before the pill was introduced, before abortion was legalized, before 'no-fault' divorce, and so on. And way before LGBTQ rights. Remember the time Professor? "Do you remember a time, readers, when you could spend a whole day, actually a whole month, occasionally even a year, and not give one passing thought to the issue of sexual perversions?"
Remember the time?
Can't have it both ways - or can you?
Just saying. I do enjoy throwing it back at 'them'. I mean, what are they going to do about it? How, what do they think these laments accomplish? Was Cardinal Siri a prophet? Trads think he should have been pope - others think he was pope - and haven't had one since. (And I laugh!) Seriously, what is blame game? What does it accomplish? Why such lamentation?
So let's review the Siri notice, and then explain why you think the Liturgy and the priesthood is so effeminate while the women in our lives wear (the) pants? (And I laugh!)
Requiem for Cardinal Siri
Séminaire de Gricigliano - ICRSP
I'm thinking the ICRSP might agree with the following.
In 1960 Cardinal Siri advised the clergy and faithful of Genoa regarding immodest fashions for women, including wearing men's clothing - trousers. In view of these adaptations assumed by women and how they dress, is it any wonder that gender ideology has emerged as a result? Or transvestism by gays and lesbians? Or the fact that women let themselves go and become morbidly obese - much like Burgermeisters of old?
I. The first signs of the collapse of civilization is the use of men’s clothing by women and girls, even mothers of families.
First, with regard to covering the female body, the wearing of men’s trousers cannot be said to constitute in itself a grave offense against modesty, because trousers certainly cover more of a woman’s body than do modern skirts.
Second, for clothing to be modest, however, it must not only cover the body but also should not cling too tightly to the body. It is certain that some women’s clothing today fits more closely to the body than trousers, but the latter can also be tight fitting – and in fact generally are so. Therefore, wearing such tight fitting clothing causes us no less concern than exposing the body. Thus it is that the immodesty of men’s trousers on women is one aspect of the problem that must not be left out of a general judgment on the topic, even if it should also not be artificially exaggerated.
II. There is, however, another aspect of women wearing trousers that seems much graver to us.
The wearing of men’s dress by women primarily affects the woman herself, first by changing the feminine psychology proper to women. Second, it affects the woman as the wife of her husband by tending to corrupt the relations between the sexes.Third, the woman as the mother of her children loses dignity in the children’s eyes. Each of these points should be carefully considered.
- Masculine clothing changes the psychology of women
- Women wearing men’s clothing tends to corrupt the relations between the two sexes - Read more here.*
Song for this post here