To be Catholic is to be a “radical traditionalist”

By Vox Cantoris

What Catholics once were, we are.
If we are wrong, then Catholics through the ages have been wrong.
We are what you once were.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.
If you were right then, we are right now.
Robert De Plante

Given the quotation above, I think we can say it clearly; if you are not a traditional Catholic then you are a bad Catholic and in fact, a protestant. You flirt with dissent and heresy and you are the cause of schism and the current crisis in the Church.

To be Catholic is to be traditionalist. To be traditionalist is to be Catholic. It seems that during these times of crisis in the Church to be traditionalist in a Catholic sense is to make one the equivalent of the red-headed stepchild. What of those who use this phrase to describe their fellow Catholics? What does it make them when they use the tactics of Saul Alinsky himself?

trad

Frankly, it makes them, bad Catholics.

When one is accused of being a “radical traditionalist” what does it mean?

Does it mean that one rejects the Second Vatican Council or the “banal manufactured product” of the new Mass as Benedict XVI referred to it? What if one accepts the reality of the new, but prefers the old? Does it mean that one speaks out against the shenanigans coming from the highest places in Rome? If we are angry about the heresy proposed by Kasper or his racist remarks about Africans, if we are disturbed by some of Pope Francis’ ill-chosen words and phrases or interviews, if we are dismayed when media prominent priests blatantly ignore the liturgical law and then distort to explain it away, does that make us radical traditionalists? If we oppose the will of some bishops and cardinals to provide the Most Blessed Sacrament to people in unrepentant mortal sin does that make us radical traditionalists?

I hope so!

One cannot be Catholic without being traditional. If one is Catholic one must be radical. The word comes from the the Latin radix, meaning root. How can Catholic be anything but radical, particularly living within this secular world and the new “pagan ideology” that has taken over parts of the Church as so aptly phrased by Bishops Schneider.

The reason that we are labelled such is that we are right. Those who put these labels on us are conflicted and schizophrenic because on one hand, they might like a little Latin Mass once or twice per year but on the other hand they have become “pagan Catholics” as our Holy Father so aptly called them a few days ago. If all you can do is look away from the real problems and crisis facing the Church and mock and deride then you are nothing more than a coward and part of the problem; and this goes for you if you are laity or priest or a bishop. You are lukewarm and you will be spat out on the last day.

If I wish to follow the practices of the faith in my life my parents grew up with in the Church I am, in the positive sense of the word, proud to be a radical traditionalist.

If you are not a radical traditionalist, then you are simply, not Catholic.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to To be Catholic is to be a “radical traditionalist”

  1. keenforgod says:

    I can see the appeal of the author’s argument, the link that Catholicism has to Sacred Tradition. But there’s Tradition, and then there’s tradition. Being Catholic certainly means a belief in Sacred Tradition, but I would be limiting the Body & Bride of Christ to say she cannot grow and mature in her thought. I would be limiting the Holy Spirit and the freedom he gives to us all.

    Like

  2. Keenforgod:
    Please explain yourself. What do you mean ? ‘there’s tradition and then there is tradition.’
    This is the sort of doublespeak we hear from the Church these days.
    also, ”…but also I would be limiting the BODY and BRIDE of Christ to say she cannot grow and mature in her thought.
    ” Are suggesting that Our Lord has been ‘limited ‘ all this time. To suggest so is to say He was deficient at one time or another.?”
    Are you saying that the Bride of Christ (The Church) did not possess the fullness of revelation when Our Lord Established his Church and that now only in the last 50 years he has finally revealed all?
    The Scriptures and Sacred Tradition possess all of revelation. Both were given in their entirety
    Either way what you say is double speak and at least borderline heresy.
    Yes the Holy Spirit ( the God Head) has indeed given us free will. We are to discern and develop our understanding of the Church’ teachings and doctrines and we should not develop new one to suit our selves.
    May I suggest you epitomise what is wrong with the Church today.

    Like

  3. Ben says:

    As an ex-Protestant coming into the Church, I was somewhat confused at first to encounter people who claim to be Catholic, but refuse to be in communion with the pope. Some of the best arguments I heard for becoming Catholic in the first place centered around the unity that can be found here. I’m weary of protesting, and grateful for the peace I’ve found in being around people who do not need to say “we’re not part of that!” all the time. Although I understand there are some issues worthy of discussion, I have found Pope Francis to be a great leader (not to mention Pope St. John Paul II, wow!) and Benedict XVI. When I honestly wanted to understand Vatican II it began to make a lot of sense, and the Catechism is a wonderful gift to help us understand the faith. Of course I don’t know what it was like when the Latin Mass was normal… I’m grateful that Mass is in the language I speak, as Latin used to be the language the people spoke. I also think it’s cool that people can still find Latin Masses to attend if they want.

    If I’m standing before God someday being asked to explain myself, I would rather have to explain why I stayed with the pope even though I should have figured out that I needed to leave, rather than explain why I left the pope because I thought I knew better. The gates of hell will not prevail, and a study of history has shown me that the Church has been through some pretty hard times. It is a great time to be a Catholic right now, and to be part of the New Evangelization rather than arguing amongst each other.

    Tradition is one of the wonderful aspects of Catholicism that I have come to appreciate in a huge way, but if calling myself a “traditionalist” might make people think I’m not in communion with the pope then I’ll stick with the term “Catholic” and leave off the “traditionalist” label.

    Peace be with you.

    -Ben

    Like

  4. John says:

    As I begin to discover and engage with traditional Catholicism for the first time, two things have become particularly apparent to me.
    As a lifelong practicing Christian outside of the Roman Catholic Church, I have attempted to follow the teachings of Christ and to live a good life as an active member of the church, something I will continue to do as a Roman Catholic.
    In embracing traditional Catholicism in my middle age, it is clear to me that traditionally, there is and always has been, little place for compromise, – this is not a criticism, but something I applaud, for neither should there be, or can there be, since compromise can only be, in terms of what Catholics need to believe as good Catholics, a destructive force; leading to a very slippery slope, and this brings me to my first observation.
    One has to accept on becoming a Catholic, that although other Christian denominations have degrees of validity, that validity can only ever be partial and incomplete at best, or indeed, worse still, their professions totally in error. Any Catholic who knows their faith will be quick to point out that schism is by its very nature heretical and against God’s will for his Universal Church, which is the one true body of Christ, the degree of heresy being reflected in the degree of catholicity that is adopted by the schismatic .
    For the most part, the separation of groups of Christians from the Roman Catholic Church has been as a result of either a specific group’s denial or rejection of some aspect of Catholic teaching, or for the sake of what it sees as necessary “reformation” , for political reasons, or by reason of a particular and supposedly “alternative” interpretation of the teachings of Christ by an individual or group of individuals who believe they have somehow acquired a mandate to speak for God outside of his Holy Catholic Church and its earthly leader the Pope.
    I suspect it is a good deal more difficult for Cradle Catholics to appreciate what being Catholic actually means, in comparison to how others see Christian faith and practice in their own respective denominations, since for the most part Cradle Catholics will have had little or no exposure to any other form of Christian experience from that which was taught them, whereas coming from a non-Catholic Christian background, and with some ecumenical experience, I would argue that once a group of (all be it well-meaning men and women) start to “tinker” with an institution and theology that has been built up over 2 millennia, and has become the repository of accepted and revealed truth, it can potentially initiate a slide into heresies of all kinds ( I site the C of E in recent years as a prime example of internal schism ) where as a result of the dilution and abandonment of whatever vestiges of Catholicity remained in its ancient corridors by groups of idealists who think they “know” what is right , that communion is failing badly. The result being that thanks to Anglicanum Coetibus of Benedict VXI, and the establishment of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, Anglican people and priests are flocking en mass to Rome in a desperate attempt to preserve the particulars of their own Catholic tradition and heritage.
    Secondly I would suggest that of course, the Church will encounter change, it is in the nature of development in all things, but it is the nature of the change that is important. Some things are simply inviolate, and this is where traditional values and practices are so important, not only as a reminder of the roots of our faith, but as a testimony to where we have come from, and why we have survided.
    It is only through what has gone before that we can see how we came to where we are today. The methodology, the process of developing truths, the stability through strong institution, of these things we have certainty; these precepts have served the Catholic Church well for 2000 years. Pleased o not abandon what we know works, and more importantly what God has ordained to be the right way. Whilst I believe that considering such things as same sex marriages, Women Priests so on and so forth should not even be on the table, “Tinkering” with the Church’s’ tried and tested methods and mechanisms is inherently dangerous to its stability and Catholicity. I speak as one who has had experience.
    Schism is a bad thing, schism within the church itself is even worse and must be avoided at all costs, and those who feel they have the mandate to in any way fiddle with or tinker with 2 millennia of revealed orthodoxy should first consider the great gifts that the same orthodoxy has bestowed upon them for all that time, which include stability, strength, confidence, absolute belief, certainty and total trust in the efficacy of the Church establishment. Be alert to what can happen, you only have to look to the Church of England for lessons to be learnt. Hold fast to what works. Hold fast to tradition

    Like

  5. johnhenrycn says:

    My two cents worth: You either believe, profess and do your best to follow Catholic doctrine or you’re not a Catholic. Yes, doctrine can and does develop, and biblical revelation is still being revealed, in the sense that we do not yet completely understand it and never will this side of the grave. Doctrine has to develop because our 21st century world is far different than the 1st century world. But doctrinal ‘developments’ which seek to throw out the old instead of understanding how the old relates to contemporary circumstances are paving stones on the road to Hell.

    To use phrases like “traditional Catholicism” or “traditional marriage” is to play into the hands of those who would destroy them, because the word “tradition” suggests there is more than one valid type of Catholicism, more than one valid type of marriage.

    For all that, I’m on the same side as those who identify themselves as traditionalists. When it comes to orthopraxy, as distinct from orthodoxy, belonging as I do to a Novus Ordo parish, I guess it would be more accurate to say I’m a traditionalist sympathizer than a full fledged traditionalist, but even there, it is, I believe, a sound tradition not to parish shop without clear just cause.

    Like

  6. Cardinal Raymond Burke recently said that he hesitates to use the term Traditional Marriage because it infers that there is another type of Marriage. There is only one type of Catholicism that is real and genuine. It must of necessity embrace the whole of its tradition and not discard or ‘tinker’ with its doctrines or practices arbitrarily .
    Thankyou for the insights provided by the contributors above…

    Like

  7. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    Reblogging this!

    Like

  8. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    Reblogged this on Be Feminine, Not Feminist and commented:
    I have another post that I’m working on that will be up sometime before the weekend, but I just read this one and think it speaks volumes. So, here it is…

    Like

  9. kathleen says:

    I wrote a long comment last night in response to the diverse and excellent comments in this thread, only for the comment to somehow disappear into the black hole of cyberspace, never to return! 😦 I was too tired and it was too late to try to rewrite it, but I’ll just mention a few observations now that come to mind…

    It is true that the tone of the article may appear exceptionally forthright and even perhaps rather harsh, but the purpose of the message it brings, and the truth of the same, cannot be denied. One either believes 100% all that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches… or one is a “bad Catholic”.
    That still allows for people’s preferences, as for example, as Ben has pointed out, like those who may prefer Holy Mass in the vernacular (something I do not, passionately loving the Tridentine Mass as I do, but for those who agree with Ben I think they should not be deprived of it) while we still all profess “one faith, one Lord, one baptism” in obedience to the Church’s Divinely inspired and timeless Magisterium.

    What has been established as the Eternal Truths contained in the Church’s Doctrines and Dogmas is not up for discussion. FULL STOP. That so many Catholics nowadays – often victims of poor catechesis and thus with an incomplete knowledge of their Faith – argue and dispute unchangeable teachings, is a clear sign of the confusion of our times. But when the clergy, even bishops and cardinals divulge these heretical ideas (e.g. the disgraceful attempts of some members of the recent Synod on the Family) then we are in Big Trouble. Such a betrayal should definitely provoke an appalled protest among the faithful!

    This is what I think is the aim of the author of the article – to denounce these heresies, even if that means we shall be branded “radical traditionalists” in doing so. Okay, let’s all be RAD TRADS in that case – count me in! We have the whole of Heaven, Our Blessed Lord, Our Lady, all the angels and saints, and countless faithful souls persecuted and martyred for their refusal to denounce their Faith (not forgetting the thousands of recent Iraqi martyrs) on our side. We are in very good company 🙂

    Like

  10. Thousands agree with you, Kathleen. As for the liturgy, here are some thoughts by Benedict XVI (when he was Cardinal Ratzinger) that I think relate to the excellent essay by “Vox Cantoris”:

    “In reality what happened was that an unprecedented clericalization came on the scene. Now the priest — the ‘presider’, as they now prefer to call him — becomes the real point of reference for the whole Liturgy. Everything depends on him. We have to see him, to respond to him, to be involved in what he is doing. His creativity sustains the whole thing. . . .Not surprisingly, people try to reduce this newly created role by assigning all kinds of liturgical functions to different individuals and entrusting the ‘creative’ planning of the Liturgy to groups of people who like to, and are supposed to, ‘make a contribution of their own’. Less and less is God in the picture. More and more important is what is done by the human beings who meet here and do not like to subject themselves to a ‘pre-determined pattern’.” (Spirit of Liturgy, ch. 3)

    Like

  11. kathleen says:

    @ Robert

    Yes this is a wonderful document; everyone should read it.

    Pope Benedict XVI understood so clearly that the crisis of identity in the Church today is a crisis, first and foremost, of our sacred worship, our liturgy. Fr. Z also said something along these same lines recently: that unless we revitalise our worship by making the God-centred Extraordinary Form of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass more widespread and available for the faithful, we shall never straighten out and revitalise every other aspect of our Catholic lives.
    That’s a powerful statement!

    However, what do you think should be done with the Novus Ordo Mass then, so embedded in Catholic practice all over the world today? Many would like to see it abolished completely, and the Mass of the Ages become the one and only unifying Holy Sacrifice as it always used to be from the earliest times of the Church. But the problem is, there is a large section of the Church faithful – what one would call “good Catholics”, i.e. obedient and faithful to all the Church’s teachings – who do honestly prefer Mass in the vernacular, incomprehensible though that might appear to us! Could the two Masses exist side by side in the future do you think? Would it not divide the Church into two factions – a threat that many fear is already fast approaching – and cause unimaginable complications?

    I really don’t have the answers to any of this myself.

    There are so many beautiful quotes from the saints extolling the Holy Tridentine Mass…(but not a single one that I know of directed to a Novus Ordo Mass!)

    Oh, what awesome mysteries take place during Mass! One day we will know what God is doing for us in each Mass, and what sort of gift He is preparing in it for us. Only His divine love could permit that such a gift be provided for us.” – St. Maria Faustina Kowalska

    Like

  12. pietrus47 says:

    The Holy Mass is the heart of the Roman Catholic Church. The sacred Liturgy was amputated by the Novus Ordo.
    The new Mass, now, is no longer a sacrifice; if isn’t a sacrifice, no victim is present. No victim, no God.

    Like

  13. dee woodson says:

    I need to know the things like dress for Holy Mass and does it mean no jeans at home?

    Like

  14. Tom Fisher says:

    I need to know the things like dress for Holy Mass and does it mean no jeans at home?

    Kathleen is the best person here to answer this. But my suggestion is this:

    God asks us to give what we can give, but never asks us to give more than we can give. By dressing in our best clothes we participate as fully as we can in the solemnity of the Mass. But whatever your best clothes are, they are good enough. Dress your best, but do not measure yourself by anyone else.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. The Raven says:

    Dear Dee,

    I would echo everything that Tom has said (including the part about Kathleen knowing best), but I would add two further suggestions (they are not intended as commands and there is a variety of viewpoints on this subject).

    The first is to suggest that you don’t stress too much over this issue; a lot of pixels are spilt over this question, the key thing is to remember that you are going to Mass to encounter Our Lord, pretty much everything else is secondary. Equally, that’s why everyone else is there: it would be unkind to act as a distraction by being ostentatious (and one can be ostentatiously plain as well as “flashy”).

    The second is not to care too much about the opinions of others: there are a lot of people out there who want to decide what others, particularly women, should wear; on the whole, their opinions are not going to be much better informed than your own judgment.

    Like

  16. kathleen says:

    Dear Dee,

    In answer to your question, I feel there is not much I can add to the excellent suggestions (and reminders) of Tom and Raven above, when going to meet Our Blessed Lord in Holy Mass.

    Dressing smartly and modestly, avoiding clothing that is over-casual, or might be in any way provocative, one cannot go wrong. I prefer to always wear a skirt (or dress) that reaches to below the knees to Mass because I feel this follows those norms better, but in winter (as we are now in the northern hemisphere) a coat will cover one’s backside anyway if you are wearing trousers.

    As to wearing jeans at home, I really do not think there is anything wrong with that (just so long as they are not too tight 😉 ). Trousers and jeans are a recognised part of female clothing nowadays, and for some activities they may even be considered to be more modest and practical.
    Personally speaking, I love pretty feminine skirts – my normal daily form of dress – but as both Tom and Raven have pointed out, it is really up to you and your better judgement, remembering at all times that we are temples of the Holy Spirit. God bless.

    Like

  17. Tom of the 6th January…. “by dressing in our best clothes……… but what ever your best clothes are, they are good enough”
    Your best clothes may not be of sufficiently modest. In that case they are not good enough. I have seen atrocious examples of people dressing in ‘their best’… Is modesty in the eye of the wearer? I think,not always.
    The male member of our species is the better judge of a woman wearing what is modest and what is not. If his eyes are drawn to her because she exhibits only that which is holy/wholesome and not lustful intent and he sees her as something worth preserving and protecting. A safer definition of what is modest is then reached.And dare I say the same would apply in reverse.
    And Raven…”on the whole, their opinions are not going to be much better informed that your own judgement.” I think a males opinion of what a female is wearing would be a better guide. and the same from a female/male perspective.
    A BIG proviso would apply however….
    Provided a Father/Husband would ask him self, with the mind of Our Lady, would he be happy with his young Daughter/Wife wearing that outfit or dress in public or to Mass? A wife and Mother, again with the mind of Our Lady, would have better perspective of her Husband/Sons modest dress.
    It is a complicated topic and this comment is unfinished for that reason.
    I feel I could say something about Kathleen’s endorsement of Slacks/Jeans but she did finish with the ultimate reminder that we are temples of the holy Spirit.

    Like

  18. kathleen says:

    “The male member of our species is the better judge of a woman wearing what is modest and what is not. If his eyes are drawn to her because she exhibits only that which is holy/wholesome and not lustful intent and he sees her as something worth preserving and protecting.”

    That is an insightful observation that speaks volumes. And yes, it is often men who are better judges of what is provocative or modest clothing in women, rather than women themselves who, without realising it, are usually just going along with the current fashions… fashions that are often designed to arouse men’s desire!

    We are so utterly brain-washed by our highly over-sexualised Western culture that we can easily forget that how we dress sends out constant messages to those around us, without even having to open our mouths. 😉

    Like

  19. JabbaPapa says:

    The new Mass, now, is no longer a sacrifice

    This is an objectively false statement, that verges on being an heretical opinion against the very Supernature of the Holy Eucharistic Mass.

    Whicher abuses of the Mass must be denounced in such strong terms as you have employed — and, disastrously, a very great number of abuses of the Novus Ordo are perpetrated daily in a very great number of parishes and dioceses — but it is extremely wrongful to suggest, explicitly or implicitly, that the Novus Ordo Mass in se might be a direct contradiction of its own Christic Supernature.

    I do remain VERY sad for all Catholics who have been violently deprived of the properly Latinate Liturgy and Worship and Sacrifice that is the Proper of the Holy Mass, both in the Novus and the Vetus Ordo.

    The Latinate, sung Gregorian Novus Ordo Holy Eucharistic Mass does not have the grave defects that you wrongfully ascribe to it.

    Like

  20. JabbaPapa says:

    kathleen : We are so utterly brain-washed by our highly over-sexualised Western culture that we can easily forget that how we dress sends out constant messages to those around us, without even having to open our mouths.

    Quite.

    Like

  21. Tom Fisher says:

    The male member of our species is the better judge of a woman wearing what is modest and what is not.

    I think not. We must all choose a side in the battle between an open society, and a society where a small coterie of men dictate moral norms. The blood on the streets of Paris is not unrelated to the lunatic nonsense quoted above. Let me spell it out Geoff, –each — woman — is — the — proper — judge — of — her — own — clothing–

    Like

  22. JabbaPapa says:

    Yes, well, Tom none of us can be our own judge — and indeed the suggestion that we all should be is the very heart of Modernism.

    I also find that your comment seeking to relate that ghastly terrorist atrocity with kathleen’s rather modest suggestions is grossly objectionable.

    Like

  23. JabbaPapa says:

    ooopps sorry — Geoff’s.

    Like

  24. Tom Fisher says:

    Jabba:

    Yes, well, Tom none of us can be our own judge — and indeed the suggestion that we all should be is the very heart of Modernism.

    What an utterly irrelevant load of tripe. When my wife gets dressed in the morning she knows perfectly well whether she is dressing decently or not. — It is pathetic to suggest that I, you, or any other man are in position to correct her.

    I also find that your comment seeking to relate that ghastly terrorist atrocity with kathleen’s rather modest suggestions is grossly objectionable.

    It wasn’t Kathleen’s suggestion. — More importantly, Geoff’s comment — with it’s revolting assumption that men have a particular facility for judging how woman dress, was — and I affirm my original point– exactly the kind of thinking which leads to religious totalitarianism and the acts of violence that follow from it.

    Like

  25. JabbaPapa says:

    It is pathetic to suggest that I, you, or any other man are in position to correct her

    And yet, here you are, going out of your way to correct others, not just for what we may be wearing — but what we may be thinking.

    Sorry, but I am not a servant of the politically correct Though Police that seeks to enslave every last one of us into abject Relativism.

    exactly the kind of thinking which leads to religious totalitarianism and the acts of violence that follow from it

    And your Modernist, Relativist, secular totalitarianism is somehow superior, is it … ?

    In reality, a system of morals is the cornerstone of all civilisation, so that your gross suggestion that all should simply do as they please is the exact opposite of what all Catholic Christians are called to.

    Or what — are you your own judge when you go to Confession, and do you expect that you shall be your own Judge when you shall find yourself before the Throne of God ?

    Like

  26. Tom Fisher says:

    Jabba,

    I shall endeavor to answer all your points, though not necessarily in the order you made them:

    are you your own judge when you go to Confession, and do you expect that you shall be your own Judge when you shall find yourself before the Throne of God ?

    When I go to confession I go humbly, when I find myself before the throne of God I will tremble with fear.

    I am not a servant of the politically correct Though[t] Police that seeks to enslave every last one of us into abject Relativism.

    Do you really think that the non-existent “politically correct thought police” are the threat that we should be worried about? Is it really possible that the events of the last 24 hours have left you so detached from reality that you think that ‘relativism’ is the great threat to our civilization?

    In reality, a system of morals is the cornerstone of all civilisation, so that your gross suggestion that all should simply do as they please is the exact opposite of what all Catholic Christians are called to.

    All I suggested is that women should choose their own clothes (read back over my comments). It is symptomatic that you regard this as an attack on western civilization

    Like

  27. Tom Fisher says:

    The male member of our species is the better judge of a woman wearing what is modest and what is not.

    Just to avoid any confusion: I repeat my assertion that the quote above isn’t just nonsense, it is the kind of nonsense which forms the bedrock of totalitarianism.

    Like

  28. JabbaPapa says:

    Is it really possible that the events of the last 24 hours have left you so detached from reality that you think that ‘relativism’ is the great threat to our civilization?

    What an utterly irrelevant load of tripe.

    Like

  29. SORRY to all. I meant to put in a BIG PROVISO, in my comment. You know the one…Where provided we ‘think with the mind of the Mother of God’…….,.,., Hang on a minute I did include that proviso !!!???
    I could have left it out, It seems nobody reads all that one has to say anyway, just the bits that suit themselves.
    We sometimes think from a secular, worldly, humanist, perspective, forgetting that we are citizens of the Kingdom of God….. I did put in there, somewhere, that women have the same ability as the male.

    Like

  30. kathleen says:

    Tom,

    Please don’t be offended, but I think you are confusing two completely different dress codes concerning women here: (1) Muslim women who have to dress in a certain way whether they want to or not, for if they refuse they would be either punished by flogging or even death, or at least branded as outcasts, and (2) Christian women who choose, willingly, out of love for God and the virtue of Holy Purity, to follow a form of dress code that is modest and feminine (unlike much of Western fashions for women nowadays) and not because anyone is ‘holding a gun to her head’, so to speak.

    No one (and certainly not Geoff) is suggesting that women cannot distinguish themselves between modest and immodest clothing, but it is helpful, and something to be grateful for, to have one’s men-folk point out an inappropriate thing or two sometimes that we may not be aware of ourselves… and thus curb our being a cause of sin to another.

    It is precisely this dislike of many traditional male Catholics of women wearing trousers or jeans (under any circumstances) that is making me seriously rethink my own attitude to this form of female attire. There are good Christian reasons for this non-acceptance of trousers for women that we could perhaps discuss on an entire post dedicated to this subject. Watch this space! 😉

    Like

  31. Kathleen: As usual you have nailed it.

    Like

  32. Tom Fisher says:

    What an utterly irrelevant load of tripe.

    After two days Jabba, I’m still waiting to see if you have anything constructive to say.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s