Why can i not get past this issue?

everytime i get peace of mind, it keeps coming back up. and not on purpose either.


basically she makes some points that i don’t know what to think about.

on the one hand, i cna’t just ignore her arguments since so many others make the same one. on the other, it seems ridiculous that clothing puts us in mortal sin.

basically it boils down to this, if pants weren’t wrong for women, why were they not accepted until now?

please read the article and let me know what you think. thanks

If your conscience is telling you to wear skirts and dresses and avoid trousers, then follow your conscience. It is okay to try something out for a while, during which time you can prayerfully consider whether you should continue. But it is important to be careful to avoid judging other women who experience no internal conflict and wear trousers. If you can do what you feel led to do, without falling into judgements of others, then do it. Living that lifestyle for while might help you to figure out what is right for you, as well as give you time to understand why other women choose to use their freedom in these choices in a different way than you. But don’t fret about it. Just try it for a while and wait for the Holy Spirit to teach you. God bless!

What do you mean by ‘now,’ in terms of an era?

A better questions to ask is, if pants were wrong for women, who on earth doesn’t the Church say something about it?

Have you thought that this might be a distraction from doing or studying something else? What would, or could you be doing that is more fruitful in helping you grow spiritually?

This isn’t a criticism, just a thought from an easily distracted person.


I read the blog. It’s just that - a blog. It is someone’s opinion. Can you contact a faithful priest for advice on the subject?

Food for thought: Men’s pants and women’s pants are not the same. They are not cut the same, etc. Typically, a man would never wear women’s pants. Even button down shirts are different. Men’s shirts have the buttons on the right side, while women’s shirts typically have them on the left. The shirts are also typically cut differently too.

People who believe isn’t wrong for women to wear pants often do not reconginze the differences. Or they feel that the different cut in pants shows off too much of the curves of a woman’s body (which is a totally different point and can be very valid, especially with tight pants).

Now, as a man: I often find pants on women to be more “sexy” while skirts (not pencil skirts or mini-skirts) on women to be more “beautiful” and “graceful.” I think this is because pants on women (unless they are “baggy” or modestly cut) show the shape and curves of the behind and possibly legs. Skirts typiclly do not (unless they are pencil or mini). Typically, most men (except the hypsters) do not wear “skinny jeans” or other tight pants.

So regarding this:
*To say that women should wear pants/shorts is also to ignore what the Blessed Virgin Mary revealed at Fatima when She stated, “Certain styles and fashions are being introduced which gravely offend My Divine Son.” *

I think there is a major difference between wearing pants and wearing skinny jeans. A baggy suit-like pant which is not skin tight does not reval much. A tight, skinny jean, tights, etc does. The same thing can be said about a more modest swimsuit vs a string bikini. And if I were to guess, the string bikini might be more offensive to God than women wearing modestly
cut pants.

But that’s just my two cents. All in all, follow your concience and try to wear something that does not bring scandal. :smiley:

God Bless.

I read the blog. Apparently the blogger never saw a Scots warrior. :smiley:

“why can i not get past this issue?” Maybe because you keep searching the internet for sites about it? Why do you do that, when you know it’s going to bother you? If you search long enough, you’ll find someone claiming just about anything.

Yep. The best thing for the OP to do is ignore the internet and talk to her priest.

The blog linked in the OP- Yeah, if it were written on paper I’d use it to wrap fish with. It’s worthless.

-Women should only wear dresses/skirts because even though not all women’s clothing is dresses and skirts, dresses and skirts are always women’s clothing. What?
-Then the author claims women didn’t wear pants for centuries. Well that’s not actually true. Pants used to be unisex clothing items (clothing items no “civilized” man would be caught dead in, but that’s another topic). The idea that pants were only male clothing didn’t real arise until the late medieval period.
-“Roman Catholic canon law and Magisterial teaching took Deuteronomy 22:5 literally. The Synod of Gangra, called by Constantine, condemned the wearing of men’s clothing by women: Canon XIII: If any woman, under pretence of asceticism, shall change her apparel and, instead of a woman’s accustomed clothing, shall put on that of a man, let her be anathema.” Apparently the author didn’t bother to research the term “asceticism.”

I didn’t bother to read the rest. The author’s whole argument seems to boil down to “dresses and skirts have always been women’s clothing (only true if one specifies what constitutes a dress or skirt) so women can only wear dresses and skirts.” That’s like saying “Easter is always on a Sunday, so every Sunday is Easter.”

After posting comments about the article from the blog I went to the home page of said blog. Do not use this blog as a means to educate yourself about the Catholic faith. I found the below on the home page of the blog-


(Note, I no longer recommend the above site. Father Brian Harrison and his colleagues did a wonderful job being Vatican II “spin masters,” but unfortunately, the impostors who claim to have occupied the Chair of Peter have, instead, embraced an heretical reading of the Second Vatican Council, which means that the council is not a true Catholic Council, but a false and apostate one. In any case, judge for yourself.)"

Not only does the author of the blog make charges against the Holy Father, he makes charges against a priest that I would consider to be very orthodox in his views and writings.

Pants haven’t even been around for men that long, relatively speaking. Men wore hose and big codpieces just a few hundred years ago, and I think if a man wore one today into church we’d see that as wrong with a capital W.

I love me a good pair o’ pants.

You seem to be hanging onto this issue… why is that? For example, you could be afraid of doing the wrong thing by wearing women’s slacks; you could be being influenced by people who hold ideas opposite yours and you are trying to see who is correct; you could be being called to wear skirts and dresses yourself and not be really aware of that; etc.

There have been times when I have held onto an issue and determining why that was helped.

The OP asked why she can’t get past this.
Not for opinions on pants.

Given that you can read some dang strange stuff on the internet, that seems to be the right question…why let any of it take hold of you?


"on the one hand, i cna’t just ignore her arguments since so many others make the same one. on the other, it seems ridiculous that clothing puts us in mortal sin.

basically it boils down to this, if pants weren’t wrong for women, why were they not accepted until now?

please read the article and let me know what you think. thanks"

The title of the thread asks why she can’t past this; the actual text in the OP asks about the article (which is all about pants not being clothing women should wear), the arguments presented in the argument (which are about pants not being clothing women should wear), and a specific question from the poster about pants.

Now how exactly are we to respond to the actual text in the OP without discussing pants and the errors involving pants that the author of the article made? Just ignore the text of the OP and just answer the question asked in the title of the OP with a generic “hey there’s all sorts of crazy stuff on the internet” response?:shrug:

Truthfully, there have been many different customs about attire over the course of written history. Who is to say what people were wearing before written history. Maybe everyone wore pants but skirts and dresses were invented later as a fashion. If we were looking for immutable truths about what clothing is divinely meant to be for only women or men then how can we cite the cultures recorded in written history. That is no different than citing current culture. It is only different in your mind because you are making the assumption that the previous culture was the original culture. That is probably not true. The point of wearing the appropriate dress is simply that we are not meant to impersonate the other sex. In western cultures, women can wear pants. It is decided. They are not impersonating a man by doing so. Pants are gender neutral, like T-shirts.

OK, I take your point.
Still seems like the trousers took on a life of their own.

Did not Jesus tell us not to worry about what we will wear?
Consider the lilies of the field…

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.