Reminiscences of Pre-Vatican II Life and How It Came to Ruin

Philosophy Notes

Catholic Candle note: Below are the charming recollections we received from one of our senior readers.  Her account speaks from her heart and shows her love of what is truly Catholic and normal.  This is an edifying memoire of a faithful Catholic, rather than a work of meticulously-researched history.  So, we have left her words intact without footnotes or qualifications.

Catholic Candle encourages other readers to submit articles for the glory of God and the salvation of souls.

Chicago neighborhoods in the fifties and several decades before, were a clean, orderly, quiet patchwork of cottages, bungalows, and modest apartment buildings populated by nuclear families.  The fathers, even in the Depression of the ‘30s, went to work early in the mornings, freeing the mothers to maintain the home and nurture the children, who walked with their friends to school and then home again for lunch.  At 2:45, the children again walked home—the boys to play games like “cops and robbers”, “war”, “Cowboys and Indians”, etc., the girls to ride their bikes, or roller skate, or perhaps to walk their beloved dolls in their “doll buggies”.

In the morning the mothers could leisurely comb the girls’ hair into “long curls” (unseen, of course, since pre-1940s).  A 1939 survey found the main complaint of Chicago Public High Schools to be “gum-chewing”.

Among the hundreds of large parish churches in Pre-Vatican II Chicago, some seated a thousand or more congregants.  Sunday Mass times were 6:00, 7:00, 8:00, 9:00 (Children’s Mass), 10:00 High Mass, 11:00, and 12:00 p.m.  The parishioners, suitably attired, would walk in silent contemplation to the parish church (few had cars until the fifties), filling the pews for the 9:00, 10:00, 11:00, and 12:00 Masses – the noon Mass stretching to standing room only, to accommodate the young Saturday night revelers, who stood and knelt as appropriate throughout the forty-five-minute service.

My husband has told me that in the earlier days of the Vietnam War—on the battlefields, when a priest could get through – the Catholic soldiers would race to the Mass site.  I’ve never seen anyone race to a novus ordo mass.  The rallying cry of the fifteenth century English Catholic martyrs was, “It’s the Mass that matters”, (as opposed to the Protestant Novus Ordo, which finally at Vatican II, took down almost all of the rest of the Catholic world, leaving fewer than ever Traditional Catholics, who now await the proper Consecration of Russia and its effects).

The Schools

Educators came from around the country to study the Chicago Public Schools –  staffed mainly by teachers educated, as I was, by the Catholic Religious.  The many Catholic public-school teachers in Chicago founded the Aquin Guild, with a monthly Mass (Tridentine, of course), and conference.  The students paid the remarkable low price of $1.00 per month for their tuition.

At my typical pre-Vatican II Catholic elementary school, staffed by Adrian Dominican Sisters, we prayed at the beginning of the day, and again to begin afternoon classes.  After morning prayers, the Sister would call the children alphabetically – who would reply, “Present, Sister”.  (For whatever reason the total number of children in my classroom always seemed to be 42).   Next came, as necessary, Catechism class in which the Sister called on the children individually to respond from memory to the Baltimore Catechism questions from their homework.  Math, reading, spelling, history/geography, English grammar, and sometimes art or music, completed the school day.

In all eight years of grammar school, I can remember only one instance of “discipline”.   In fourth grade, the Sister left the room for a few minutes, and a few boys began to chat.  When she returned she directed the boys to hit their hands several times with their rulers. 

The girls had their playground and the boys had theirs.  Inside the school building and out, the atmosphere was peaceful – playful on the playground, but peaceful. 

In the earlier days of the SSPX, priests commented that in a classroom, children without a T.V. at home stood out as self-controlled and “normal.”


Subversion of Curriculum

The pre-Vatican II period was also, until the late 1940s, pre-television; in general, the population thought more clearly than now – but of “Liberty & Freedom”; not so much.  Misguided patriotism seems to have blinded the people.  Here is an example of the contradictory messages taught in Catholic schools:

In the morning, we learned, substantially, that the purpose of free will, enabled by grace, was to choose the good.  In the afternoon history class, we would learn – for example, from Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, that “Our Fathers brought forth on this Continent, a new-nation, conceived in liberty” – as indeed the revolutionaries had done, as they immediately removed the cross from the flag –  (which, by the way, the Confederates from the next century, did not remove).

Indeed, the Catholic French and Spanish spiritual forefathers of those American Catholic children had already brought forth on this Continent, (as originally mapped by the devout Catholic Americus Vespucci) – thriving Catholic civilizations, from the university level down, before Lincoln’s forefathers even got here.

The (Traditional) Catholic Church of the Middle Ages conceived and executed the very idea of a “university,” – at Paris, Cambridge, Oxford, Bologna, Salamanca, the Sorbonne, Louvain, etc.  The French and Spanish governments made strenuous efforts to continue the process of establishing and encouraging education, sending ten thousand consecrated religious at a time to civilize, assimilate, educate the Indians of North, South, and Central America.  (This was in contrast to the Puritan forefathers who liked to shoot Indians for sport, while their [Puritan] cousins martyred the starving Catholics of Ireland by trampling them under the hooves of horses).

Before Vatican II, graces available in the Church somewhat elevated and permeated U.S. society at large.  Women’s skirt lengths generally extended below the knee, with special occasions requiring hat and gloves. (Hats and silence, of course, were mandatory for women in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament.)  Before John F. Kennedy, men wore hats often and not just for special occasions.

From the beginning of Vatican II until I discovered Archbishop Lefebvre’s Society of St. Pius X (unfortunately liberalized after his death), I forced myself to attend the Novus Ordo Mass, at which I never saw the pews filled.

About women’s skirt lengths: I read in my post-graduate research, an 1820s extract from The Masonic Journal – I think that was its title – that though it seems absurd, the first step in the necessary corruption of women was to raise skirts from the floor.  I read this piece in the early heyday of the miniskirt. 

Researching further to account for the apparently sudden collapse in the 1960s of the remnants of Christian civilization, I learned that in the 1920s the Vatican had forbidden women to make spectacles of themselves by performing athletics in public. 

As readers know, in 1917, Our Lady of Fatima (correctly) predicted, “Fashions which offend My Son very much will be introduced”.  I read that Our Lady’s words compelled the Vatican, in 1931, to finally explain for the first time that, among other obvious requirements – skirts should extend several inches below the knee.  (Padre Pio required of his penitents’ skirts and dresses to be at least eight inches below the knee.) 

As far as I have learned, no U.S. bishop disseminated either of the Vatican’s directives (viz., about women as public spectacles and concerning skirt-length).

Speaking of women’s decorum in public – I once saw a picture in a magazine of mobs of men filling the streets of Sicily, in celebration of the allied World War II victory in 1945.  There were no women in the streets.  (In Chicago, men and women indiscriminately mobbed State Street for the same occasion.) 

All this doesn’t begin to address the massive semi-nudity on the beaches and streets.  Such semi-nudity was directly caused by Vatican II serving its demonic purpose of virtually annihilating the Tridentine Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, that had acted as the chief restraint against the forces of hell. 

A major demonic preliminary to Vatican II and major offense against Our Lord, was the destruction which Robert Oppenheimer demanded of the only two Catholic enclaves in Japan: Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Popular consensus, which was giddy with the Atom bomb and the unconditional surrender of the Axis side in World War II, celebrated with a new swim suit style of enhanced public semi-nudity, unseen since the Church civilized the barbaric hordes of Europe in the early Middle Ages.  Their new fashion icon “Bikini,” was named after an unpopulated Pacific atoll Bikini, which was destroyed by a then-experimental atomic bomb.  Indeed “Bikini” has become, over the decades, a catchword joke for women’s beachwear which covers almost nothing.  The U.S. bomber nuking Hiroshima sported on its fuselage, a large graphic of a voluptuous woman in a pre-Bikini, World War II vintage swim suit.

Eight German Jesuit missionary priests lived near the small Hiroshima Cathedral, probably in the immediate area of the nuclear blast in Hiroshima – which Robert Oppenheimer demanded, and which the Freemason Truman readily authorized.  (He earned his honorary 33rd Masonic degree by his consent.)  The priests could see the flash as they cut their breakfast grapefruit, but felt no personal pain.  Medical examinations cleared all of these priests.  One of them (I think Father Schiffer was his name) traveled the world for decades, explaining that the Jesuit missionaries were merely living the Jesuit rule, incorporating the daily Rosary, as Our Lady of Fatima requested of everyone, and that they specifically had devotion to the Fatima message.  They were known as the “Amazing Hiroshima Eight”.  They not only survived the bombing, but also survived the radiation poisoning aftermath.

U.S. Hierarchy and Laity Refuse to Resist

Before Vatican II, people generally lived at home with their families – each girl building her “hope chest” of accessories for her future home; and the boys saving their money to support their future families.  In the ordinary middle-class standards of the era, I never encountered the various four letter-words now seemingly heard everywhere but which, before Vatican II, were not in common use.

The Vatican II blitzkrieg of the mid-sixties took no prisoners.  Women wore mini-skirts or trousers almost everywhere; crucifixes disappeared from school walls; consecrated altars and statuary appeared in second-hand stores.  I read that one of Pope Paul VI’s tiaras turned up in a resale shop.  Religious Sisters abandoned their sacred habit for uniforms reminiscent of the blue jumpers of the postulancy; college administrators crumbled before girl-terrorists demanding Get Out of Vietnam Now or Else.  I read that the year Vatican II ended, the Vatican granted sixty-five annulments worldwide and, not many years afterwards, they granted sixty-five thousand worldwide.

B’nai B’rith required that the Second Vatican Council repudiate its doctrine of “no salvation outside the Church”, and so it was.  The “Council Fathers” set in motion the request that nine Protestant ministers would help to gut the Tridentine Sacrifice and this happened, replacing it (of course) with their own Luther/Cranmer Novus Ordo of the 1500s. 

The religion itself having been thrown out, the Church buildings came to resemble semi-empty railroad stations with disheveled, slouching congregants in the pews.  I once saw a college-level guy sitting in pew – eating an apple, in the otherwise-empty Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago.  I’ve seen twenty-something Marquette students squatting on the floor, attending, (or not) to the novus ordo mass at the Jesu Church in Milwaukee.

Vatican II: The French Revolution within the Church
(As Arch. Lefebvre used to say.)

Having completed my many history-related courses in the best immediately Pre-Vatican II schools, I never encountered there, as far as I can recall, the words “Talmud”, “goyim”, “mason”, or “Free-mason.”  In general, the early English-speaking U.S. Bishops folded themselves and their compliant sheep eagerly into the Masonic pantheon of thirty-six thousand-plus sects of all religions, or no religion(s). 

The Catholic school history books even today, for example, largely mirror the books of the “public” schools.  Had the early U.S. Bishops alerted the Catholic immigrants of the Luciferian-Talmudic-“Enlightenment” and its determination to eradicate the Traditional Catholic Church from the earth, perhaps the human element of the U.S. Catholic Church of the 1960s would not have almost-totally collapsed as it did at Vatican II.

Indeed, Vatican II continued on a trajectory that began before the Masonic U.S. existed.  The century before the American and French revolutions, Our Lord, to defend against the coming onslaught, directed King Louis XIV to inscribe on the French flag, the image of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.  However, Louis XIV, Louis XV, and Louis XVI demurred; and then one hundred years later – to the day – after Our Lord gave this command to King Louis XIV, the French Assembly deposed Louis XVI from his throne.  In a street of Paris, the Masonic mob assassinated Louis XVI and his always-libeled wife, Queen Marie Antoinette. 

Phi Beta Kappa researcher Solange Hertz reports that in her study of the French journalistic output of the era, nowhere does “Let them eat cake” appear.  Queen Marie Antoinette had ordered the expulsion of the spectacularly libertarian publishers, Franklin and Jefferson.  Perhaps this indignity provoked them to concoct and spread the “Let them eat cake” libel, which continues to this day.

Jefferson and Madison, in their journal Citizen’s Gazette, had egged on their French Masonic brethren to the “Mother of all revolutions,” viz., the French Revolution.  The Masonic mob, after relieving the Bastille of its fourteen never-do-wells, enthroned a prostitute as “goddess of reason” on the desecrated main altar of Notre Dame (Our Lady) Cathedral in Paris. 

This prostitute – the “goddess of reason” is the precursor of the eventually-created “Statue of Liberty”, which holds aloft the classic “light” of Luciferian/illuminist iconography.  This abomination is a gift of the Masonic French government to their brethren in the Masonic U.S. government, for unflagging support for the genocidal massacre totaling hundreds of thousands: of Bishops, priests, consecrated nuns and other religious; fathers, mothers, children, infants – and even farm animals and pets as occurred in the Vendee region of northern France.

From the beginning, it was Franklin who brought Voltaire into Masonry, and not the reverse.  Voltaire was and is most admired for proclaiming, “I don’t agree with a word you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it” – except, of course, for the truths taught by the Catholic Church, which he was determined to annihilate. 

Voltaire died a screaming madman, gulping down the contents of his chamber pot, with brother Masons, including Franklin in attendance. (Franklin, at the U.S. Constitutional Convention, warned his brethren that in their obsession to obliterate the Church of Rome, they were overlooking “the Jews,” “who” if admitted to the U.S. would usurp all the power in the U.S. within two hundred years.)

This emphasis on the destruction of Catholic France sprang from the unpleasant reality that France was the leading Catholic power and the dominant political power of Europe.  Jefferson’s desire on his deathbed was that other nations follow the U.S./French lead in the destruction of “monkish ignorance and superstition”, as he put it.  This goal of destroying what is Catholic has been largely achieved in the Church’s human element, up to and including in the citadel of the Vatican, by Vatican II and its implementation, including the Vatican pressuring the few remaining Catholic nations to succumb.

In addition to his four legitimate children, Jefferson fathered at least six illegitimate children by a slave he inherited from his father-in-law.  The affluent Jefferson rages in his writings against “monkish ignorance and superstition.”  The Protestant William Cobbett, an English contemporary who published his own book at about the time Jefferson died, wrote that since the 1500s, English children had been imbued from their mothers’ knees with gratitude for having been freed from “monkish ignorance and superstition.”  Cobbett himself had enjoyed no such freedom, having spent his Dickensonian childhood as a rabbit chaser, and probably a weed-picker, on the estate (previously part of the public patrimony of the monasteries) of an Anglican Bishop and his family as well as his entourage.  The word “pauper” entered the English language under Henry VIII and his illegitimate daughter Elizabeth, the original plunderers of the public patrimony of the monasteries.  The descendants of some of those who were kicked off the stolen monastic lands, migrated to London where, years later, Charles Dickens described their plight.

From his youth, Cobbett researched the phrase “monkish ignorance and superstition”; eventually publishing a one hundred-sixty-page book, the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland – concluding that it was monkish knowledge and wisdom (rooted in the means of grace), which throughout the Middle Ages elevated the barbarous European hordes into Christian civilization.

One of the six causi belli (“causes of war”) of the U. S. revolution was the non-Mason King George’s permission to the citizens of Quebec to freely practice their Traditional Catholic Faith, in land adjacent to the New England colonies.  The Archbishop of Quebec excommunicated John Carroll, S.J., one of the rebel legates vainly pressuring Quebec to join the revolt – which was generously financed by wealthy Masons, according to the debriefings of General Howe.

The Catholic establishment in the U.S., obsequious from the first to their Masonic masters, submitted to – in fact originally suggested – the Masonic requirement that for citizenship, all must first accept the objective legitimacy and equality of all “religions” – thus gutting the core of the Catholic Faith.  

Our Lord, having established His Church at the price of His atrocious sufferings, mandates His Church as essential to salvation.  Obviously what Our Lord has established is true and anything “protesting” this is false.  The ten million Catholic martyrs of the first three centuries of the Christian era, under the popes of this period – almost all of them martyrs also – refused the absurdity of the then–pantheon of false gods of the self-proclaimed 30,000 “religions” at the time.

Had the U.S. founding fathers crafted a First Amendment of Mutual Tolerance to Prevent Violence, as had been forged at the Treaty of Westphalia, for example, or as warring nations have forged a truce to stop bloodshed, all “religions” and “nonreligions” could at least maintain a semblance of intellectual honesty.  The Traditional Catholic Church condemns Protestantism for its determination to supplant the Church.  The Protestants condemn the Church for claiming to be infallible in Faith and Morals – especially morals.  

Again, Jefferson desired to obliterate Catholicism and this was the goal of the Luciferian/Talmudic/Masonic/“Enlightenment” establishment.  Perhaps this goal would not have been so well fulfilled at Vatican II (as to the Church’s human element), if the early U.S. Catholic Bishops had warned the early Catholic immigrants about this plot.

At this point, the only solution to obtain world peace remains: the Pope and Bishops together must consecrate Russia to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary as Our Lord directed through Our Lady, and Sister Lucia and her superiors in 1929.

In 1931, Our Lord expressed His exasperation to Sister Lucia that virtually nothing had been done to accomplish the Consecration.  The intransigent refusal of the Popes and Bishops since 1929, to consecrate Russia precisely and simply, as Our Lord directed, has of course provoked the magnitude of the world’s horrors since then.  Our Lord told Sister Lucia that the Consecration would be done, but it would be “late”.  When the Consecration is performed, she then said that the resulting blessings would last “for a time.” 

Sister Lucia, in her memoirs of 1957, wrote that Our Lady had revealed that in response to the escalating corruption engulfing the world from the Papacy down (including Vatican II), Our Lord was making the rosary – which is accessible to all – more efficacious than ever.  Our Lady told Sister Lucia, “There is no problem which cannot be solved” by seriously praying the daily rosary, the “rosary” being a chronological series of meditations on redemptive events in the lives of Our Lord and Our Lady.  Our Lord told Sister Lucia that the Consecration would be done when a sufficient number of souls were praying the daily rosary for this intention.

Photographs of Sister Lucia before 1957 bear no resemblance to “photographs” of her after then.

About the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as codified at Trent: the Papal decree enforcing the Tridentine Sacrifice of all time admonishes the world that anyone attempting to alter this Sacrifice of all time, would “incur the wrath of the holy apostles Peter and Paul.”

Among the scores of caskets of canonized saints in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, only two caskets remain open: those of the incorrupt bodies of Pope St. Pius V, who implemented the Council of Trent and the Tridentine Sacrifice; and of Pope St. Pius X, who more than four hundred years later, would advise Theodore Herzl that the unrepentant descendants of the Talmudic Jews who engineered the crucifixion of Our Lord, should never exercise authority in the Holy Land.  (The perennial Talmudic/Islamic chaos in the Holy Land since 1947, of course, speaks for itself).

The French Revolutionary Army General Francois Westermann wrote the following:

There is no Vendee ….  According to the orders that you gave me, I crushed the children under the hooves of the horses, massacred the women who at least for these will not give birth to any more brigands.  I do not have a prisoner to reproach me.  I have exterminated all, including farm animal and family pets.

Quoted from a letter to the French Committee of Public Safety, 1794.

In delighted response to the final Masonic victory, Jefferson wrote:

The liberty of the whole earth was depending on the issue of this contest (the French Revolution) and was ever a prize (hundreds of thousands of guillotined Catholics) won with so little innocent [Masonic] blood?  I have expressed to you my sentiments, because they are really those of 99 of a hundred of our citizens.  The universal feasts and rejoicings which have lately been had on account of the successes of the French showed the genuine effusions of their hearts.

Quoted from http/founders. archives.gov/document/Jefferson01-25-02-001

Thomas Jefferson wrote this concerning Our Lord Jesus Christ:

If we could believe that he (Jesus) really countenanced the follies, the falsehoods, and the charlatanism which his biographers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) claim he taught, and (if we could) admit the misconstructions, interpretations, and theorizations of the fathers of the early ages (St. Augustine, St. Jerome, etc.) and fanatics of the latter ages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind that he (Jesus) was an imposter.

Jefferson, Memoirs, Correspondence and Private Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 1829, p. 333.

Meanwhile, the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe continues to reign in humility, modesty, and dignity, at the geographic center of the Americas, as it has since 1531 A.D., as we see so many North, South, and Central Americans continue to pervert their reason and free will and repudiate Our Lady and her Divine Son Whom she brings us in His Traditional Catholic Church.

May God help us and them!

Lesson #33 Additional meditation points on the Life of Our Lord

 

                    Mary’s School of Sanctity                   

Lesson #33  The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius –—ST. IGNATIUS’S ADDITIONAL MEDITATION POINTS ON THE LIFE OF OUR LORD

This lesson might be viewed as a kind of appendix.

LIST OF ALL THE IGNATIAN POINTS FOR THE MYSTERIES OF THE LIFE OF OUR LORD

THE ANNUNCIATION OF OUR LADY                                                                          (Luke 1:26-38)

First Point – The Angel, St. Gabriel, greeted Our Lady and announced to her the conception of Christ Our Lord.  And when the Angel had come to her, he said: “Hail, full of grace…Thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son.”

 

Second Point— The Angel confirms what he had said to Our Lady by announcing the conception of St. John the Baptist, saying to her: “And behold, Elizabeth thy kinswoman also has conceived a son in her old age.

 

Third Point—Out Lady replied to the Angel: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word.”

 

THE VISITATION OF OUR LADY TO ELIZABETH

(Luke 1: 39-56)

 

First Point—When Our Lady visited St. Elizabeth, St. John the Baptist, in his mother’s womb, felt the visitation made by Our Lady.  When Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe in her womb leapt. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost, and cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb!”

 

Second Point— Our Lady chants the canticle, saying: “My soul magnifies the Lord.”

 

Third Point— And Mary remained with her about three months and returned to her own house.

 

THE BIRTH OF CHRIST OUR LORD

(Luke 2: 1-14)

 

First Point—Our Lady and her spouse, St. Joseph, go from Nazareth to Bethlehem.  And Joseph also went from Galilee to Bethlehem, in obedience to Caesar, with Mary his espoused wife who was with child.

 

Second Point—And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger.

 

Third Point—And suddenly there was a multitude of the heavenly host prainsing God and saying: “Glory to God in the highest.”

 

THE SHEPHERDS

(Luke 2: 8-20)

 

First Point—The birth of Christ Our Lord is made known to the shepherds by an angel: “I bring you god news of great joy, for today a Savior has been born to you.”

 

Second Point—The shepherds go to Bethlehem.  So they went with haste, and they found Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in the manger.

 

Third Point—And the shepherds returned glorifying and praising God.

 

THE CIRCUMCISION

(Luke 2: 21)

 

First Point—They circumcise the Child Jesus.

 

Second Point—His name was called Jesus, the name given him by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

 

Third Point— They return the Child to His Mother, who felt compassion at the blood shed by her Son.

 

THE THREE MAGI KINGS

(Matt. 2: 1-12)

 

First Point—The three Magi Kings, guided by the star, came to adore Jesus, saying: “We have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.”

 

Second Point—They adored Him and offered Him gifts. And falling down they worshipped Him, and offered Him gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.

 

Third Point—And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they went back to their own country by another way.

 

THE PURIFICATION OF OUR LADY AND THE PRESENTATION OF THE CHILD JESUS

(Luke 2: 22-39)

 

First Point—They take the Child Jesus to the Temple to be presented to the Lord as the firstborn, and they offer for Him a pair of turtle doves and two young pigeons.

 

Second Point—Simeon, coming into the Temple, also received Him into his arms, saying: “Now thou dost dismiss thy servant, O Lord, according to thy word, in peace.”

 

Third Point—Anna, coming up at that very hour, began to give praise to the Lord, and spoke of Him to all who were awaiting the redemption of Jerusalem.

 

THE FLIGHT INTO EGYPT

(Matt. 2: 13-15)

 

First Point—Herod wanted to kill the Child Jesus, and so he slew the Innocents.  Before their slaughter an angel warned Joseph to fly into Egypt: “Arise and take the child and his mother and flee into Egypt.”

 

Second Point—He set out for Egypt. So he arose, and took the child and his mother by night, and withdrew into Egypt.

 

Third Point— There he remained until the death of Herod.

 

 

THE RETURN FROM EGYPT

(Matt. 2:19-23)

 

First Point— The angel admonishes Joseph t return to Israel: “Arise, and take the child and his mother and go into the land of Israel.”

 

Second Point—So he arose…and went into the land of Israel.

 

Third Point—Since Archelaus, the son of Herod, ruled in Judea, he withdrew to Nazareth.

 

 

JESUS COMES TO THE TEMPLE AT THE AGE OF TWELVE

(Luke 2:41-50)

 

First Point—When Christ Our Lord was twelve years old, He went up from Nazareth to Jerusalem.

 

Second Point—Christ Our Lord remained in Jerusalem and His parents did not know it.

 

Third Point—After three days had passed, they found Him in the Temple, seated in the midst of the doctors and disputing with them.  When His parents asked where had he been, He replied, “Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?”

 

THE LIFE OF OUR FROM THE AGE OF TWELVE TO THE AGE OF THIRTY

(Luke 2: 51-52)

 

First Point—He was obedient to His parents.

Second Point—Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace.

Third Point—He seems to have practiced the trade of a carpenter, as St. Mark seems to indicate in Chapter VI: “Is not this the carpenter?”

 

THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST

(Matt. 3: 13-17)

 

First Point—After He took leave of His Blessed Mother, Christ Our Lord, went from Nazareth to the River Jordan where St. John the Baptist was.

 

Second Point—St. John baptized Christ Our Lord.  When he wanted to excuse himself, considering that he was unworthy to baptize Him, Christ said to him: “Let it be so now, for so it becomes us to fulfill all justice.”

 

Third Point—The Holy Ghost descended upon Him, and the voice of the Father testified from Heaven: “This is my beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased.”

 

THE TEMPTATION OF CHRIST

(Luke 4: 1-13; Matt. 4:1-11)

 

First Point—After Jesus was baptized, He went to the desert where he fasted for forty days and nights.

 

Second Point—He was tempted by the enemy three times. And the tempter came and said to Him, “If thou art the Son of God, command that these stones become loaves of bread….Throw thyself down, …All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.”

 

Third Point—Angels came and ministered to Him.

 

THE VOCATION OF THE APOSTLES

 

First Point—It appears that St. Peter and St. Andrew were called three times.  They were first called to some knowledge, as is shown in the first chapter of St. John [35-42].  They were called a second time to follow Christ in some way, with the intention of returning to the possessions which they had left, as St. Luke relates in Chapter 5: 10-11.  The third time they were called to follow Christ Our Lord forever, in St. Matthew 4: 18-22 and St. Mark, 1:16-18.

 

Second Point—He called Philip, as described in the first chapter of St. John [43], and Matthew, as Matthew himself relates in Chapter 9:9.

 

Third Point— He called the other Apostles of whose particular vocation no mention is made in the Gospel.

            Three other points are also to be considered:

                        1. The Apostles were uneducated men, from a low station of life.

                        2.  The dignity to which they were so gently called.

                        3. The graces and gifts by which they were raised above all the Fathers                  of the Old and New Testament.

 

THE FIRST MIRACLE, PERFORMED AT THE MARRIAGE FEAST OF CANA IN GALILEE

(John 2: 1-11)

 

First Point—Christ Our Lord and His disciples were invited to the marriage feast.

 

Second Point— The Mother calls her Son’s attention to the lack of wine, saying: “They have no wine,” and she tells the attendants: “Do whatever He tells you.”

 

Third Point—He changed the water into wine…and He manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.

 

CHRIST DRIVES THE SELLERS OUT OF THE TEMPLE

(John 2: 13-16)

 

First Point—He drove all of the sellers from the temple with a scourge made of cord.

 

Second Point—He overturned the tables and scattered the money of the rich money changers that were in the temple.

 

Third Point—To the poor who were selling doves, He gently said: “Take these things away, and do not make of the house of My Father a house of business.”

 

THE SERMON CHRIST DELIVERED ON THE MOUNT

(Matt. 5)

 

First Point—He speaks apart to His beloved disciples, about the eight beatitudes: “Blessed are the poor in spirit…the meek…the merciful… they who mourn…they who hunger and thirst for justice…the clean of heart…the peacemakers…they who suffer persecution.”

 

Second Point—He exhorts them to use their talents well: “Even so let our light shine before men, in order that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.”

 

Third Point—He shows that He is not a transgressor of the law but a fulfiller.  He explains the precept not to kill, not to commit adultery, not to swear falsely, and to love our enemies; “ I say to you, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.”

 

CHRIST CALMS THE STORM AT SEA

(Matt. 8: 23-27)

 

First Point—While Our Lord was sleeping in the boat a great storm arose.

 

Second Point—His terrified disciples awakened Him; He reproved them for their little faith, saying to them: “Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?”

 

Third Point—He commanded the winds and the sea to cease, at once the wind ceased and the sea became calm.  The men marveled at this, saying: “What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?”

 

CHRIST WALKS UPON THE SEA

(Matt. 14:22-33)

 

First Point—While Christ Our Lord remained upon the mountain He made His disciples get into the boat, and when He had dismissed the crowd He began to pray alone.

 

Second Point—The boat was buffeted by the waves, Christ came to them walking  upon the water, and the disciples thought it was an apparition.

 

Third Point—And Christ said to them: “It is I, fear not.” St Peter, at His command, came to Him, walking upon the waters, but when he doubted, he began to sink, and Christ Our Lord saved him, and reproved him for his little faith.  Afterwards, when He entered the boat, the wind ceased.

 

THE APOSTLES ARE SENT FORTH TO PREACH

(Matt. 10: 1-16)

 

First Point—Christ calls His beloved disciples and gives them power to cast out devils from the bodies of men and to cure all infirmities.

 

Second Point—He instructs them in prudence and patience. “Behold, I am sending you forth like sheep in the midst of wolves. Be therefore wise as serpents and guileless as doves.

 

Third Point—He tells them how they are to go: “Do not keep gold nor silver.  Freely you have received, freely give.” And He tells them what they are to preach: “And as you go, preach the message, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’

 

THE CONVERSION OF MAGDALENE

(Luke 7: 36-50)

 

First Point—Magdalene enters the house of the Pharisee where Christ Our Lord is reclining at table.  She is carrying an alabaster vessel full of ointment.

Second Point—Standing behind the Lord near His feet, she began to bathe them with her tears and to wipe them with her hair.  And she kissed His feet and anointed them with ointment.

 

Third Point—When the Pharisee accused Magdalene, Christ defended her, saying: “I say to thee, her sins, many as they are, shall be forgiven her, because she has loved much”…and he said to the woman: “Thy faith has saved thee; go in peace.”

 

 

CHRIST FEEDS FIVE THOUSAND MEN

(Matt. 14:13-21)

 

First Point—The disciples asked Christ to dismiss the multitude who were with Him, since it was now late.

 

Second Point—Christ Our Lord commanded them to bring the loaves to Him, and ordered the multitude to sit down to eat.  He blessed and broke the loaves and gave them to His disciples and they gave them to the multitude.

 

Third Point—And all ate and were satisfied; and they gathered up what was left over, twelve baskets full of fragments.

 

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF CHRIST

(Matt. 17: 1-9)

 

First Point—Christ Our Lord took with Him His beloved disciples Peter, James, and John.  And He was transfigured before them and His face shone as the sun and His garments became white as snow.

 

Second Point—He spoke with Moses and Elias.

 

Third Point—While St. Peter was saying that they should build three tabernacles, a voice from heaven was heard, saying: “This is my beloved Son…hear him.” When the disciples heard this voice, they fell on their faces in great fear.  Jesus came and touched them, and said: “Arise and do not be afraid… Tell the vision to no one till the Son of Man has risen from the dead.

 

 

 

THE RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS

(John 11:1-45)

 

First Point—Martha and Mary make known to Christ Our Lord the illness of Lazarus.  After Jesus heard of this He remained two days longer in the place where He was, that the miracle might be more evident.

 

Second Point—Before He raises Lazarus, He asks Martha and Mary to believe, saying : “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, even if he die, shall live.”

 

Third Point—He raises Lazarus after He had wept and said a prayer.  The manner of raising him was by the command, “Lazarus, come forth.

 

THE SUFFER IN BETHANY

(Matt. 26: 6-13)

 

First Point—Our Lord takes supper in the house of Simon the leper together with Lazarus.

 

Second Point—Mary pours the precious ointment upon the head of Christ.

 

Third Point—Judas murmurs, “To what purpose is this waste of ointment?” But Jesus again excuses Magdalene saying: “Why do you trouble the woman? She has done me a good turn.

 

PALM SUNDAY

(Matt. 21: 1-11)

 

First Point—Jesus sends for the ass and the colt, saying: “Loose them and bring them to me , and if anyone say anything to you, you shall say that the Lord hath need of them and immediately he will sent them.

 

Second Point—He mounts the ass which is covered with the garments of the Apostles.

 

Third Point—The people come forth to meet Him, spreading their garments and branches along the way, saying: “Hosanna to the Son of David!  Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest.

 

JESUS PREACHES IN THE TEMPLE

(Luke 19:47)

 

First Point—And He was teaching daily in the Temple.

 

Second Point—After His teaching, since there was no one to receive Him in Jerusalem, He returned to Bethany.

 

THE LAST SUPPER

(Matt. 26:17-30; John 13:1-30)

 

First Point—Jesus ate the Paschal Lamb with His twelve Apostles, to whom He foretold His death: “Amen I say to you, one of you will betray Me.”

 

Second Point—He washed the feet of His disciples, even those of Judas.  He began with St. Peter, who, considering the majesty of the Lord and his own lowly estate, would not permit it.  He said, “Lord, dost thou wash my feet?” Peter did not understand that Jesus was giving them an example of humility by this.  Jesus therefore said to him, “I have given you an example, that as I have done for you, so you also should do.”

 

Third Point—He instituted the most Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist, as the greatest proof of His love, saying, “Take and eat.” When the supper was finished, Judas went forth to sell Our Lord.

 

 

FROM THE SUPPER TO THE AGONY IN THE GARDEN, INCLUSIVE

(Matt. 26:30-46; Mark 14:26-42)

 

First Point—After they had finished supper and sung a hymn, Our Lord went to Mount Olivet with His disciples, who were full of fear.  He left eight of the in Gethsemane, saying to them: “Sit down here while I go yonder and pray.

 

Second Point—Accompanied by Peter, James, and John, He prayed to the Father, saying, “Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me; yet not as I will, but as thou willest.And falling into an agony he prayed the more earnestly.

 

Third Point—So great was the fear that possessed Him, that He said: “My soul is sad, even unto death” and He sweated blood so copiously that St. Luke says: “His sweat became as drops of blood running down upon the ground.” This supposes that His garments were now saturated with blood.  

 

 

FROM THE AGONY IN THE GARDEN TO THE HOUSE OF ANNAS, INCLUSIVE

(Matt. 26: 47-56; Luke 22: 47-53; Mark 14:43-52; John 18: 1-23)

 

First Point—Our Lord allows Himself to be kissed by Judas, and to be seized like a thief.  He says to the crowd: “As against a robber you have come out, with swords and clubs, to seize me.  I sat daily with you in the temple teaching, and you did not lay hands on me.” And when He said: “Whom do you seek?” His enemies fell to the ground.

 

Second Point—St. Peter wounded a servant of the high priest.  The meek Lord said to him: “Put back thy sword into its place.” And He healed the servant’s wound.

 

Third Point—Jesus is abandoned by His disciples and dragged before Annas.  There St. Peter, who had followed him at a distance, denied Him the first time. Then a servant struck Christ in the face, saying to Him: “Is that the way thou answer the high priest?” 

 

FROM THE HOUSE OF ANNAS TO THE HOUSE OF CAIPHAS, INCLUSIVE

(Matt. 26: 57-75; Mark 14: 53-72; Luke 22: 54-65)

 

First Point—Jesus is led bound from the House of Annas to the House of Caiphas where Peter denied Him twice.  And when Jesus looked upon Peter, He went out and wept bitterly.

 

Second Point—Jesus was left bound the entire night.

 

Third Point—And those who held Him prisoner blindfolded Him, and struck Him and buffeted Him, and asked Him, “Prophesy, who is it that struck thee?” And in like manner they continued to blaspheme Him.

 

 

FROM THE HOUSE OF CAIPHAS TO THE HOUSE OF PILATE, INCLUSIVE

(Matt. 27: 1-26; Luke 23:1-5; Mark 15:1-15)

 

First Point—The whole multitude of the Jews brought Him before Pilate and accused Him, saying: “We have found this man perverting the nation, and forbidding the payment of taxes to Caesar.

 

Second Point—After Pilate had examined Him several times, he said: “I find no crime deserving of death in Him.

 

Third Point—Barabbas the robber was preferred to Him. The whole mob cried out together saying, Away with this man, and release to us Barabbas!

 

FROM THE HOUSE OF PILATE TO THE HOUSE OF HEROD

(Luke 23: 6-10)

 

First Point—Pilate sent Jesus the Galilean to Herod, the Tetrarch of Galilee.

 

Second Point—Herod, through curiosity, asked Jesus many scribes and priests unceasingly accused Him.

 

Third Point—Herod and his entire court mocked Jesus, clothing Him in a white garment.

 

FROM THE HOUSE OF HEROD TO THAT OF PILATE

(Matt. 27: 24-30; Luke 23: 12-23;Mark 15: 15-19; John 19: 1-11)

 

First Point—Herod sent Him back to Pilate.  Because of this, they became friends, although before this they were enemies.

 

Second Point—Pilate took Jesus and scourged Him, and the soldiers mad a crown of thorns and placed it upon His head.  They put a purple cloak about Him, and came before Him, saying: “Hail, King of the Jews!” and they struck Him.

 

Third Point—Pilate had Him brought forth before all the people; Jesus came forth, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple cloak. And Pilate said to them: “Behold the man.” When they saw Him, the chief priests cried: “Crucify Him! Crucify Him!

 

FROM THE HOUSE OF PILATE TO THE CROSS, INCLUSIVE

(John 19:12-24)

 

First Point—Pilate, sitting as judge, delivered Jesus to the Jews to be crucified, after they had denied that He was their king, saying: “We have no king but Caesar.

 

Second Point—He carried the cross upon His shoulders, and as He could not carry it, Simon of Cyrene was forced to carry it after Jesus.

 

Third Point—They crucified Him between two thieves placing this title above Him: Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.

 

JESUS UPON THE CROSS

(John 19: 23-37; Matt. 27: 35-39; Mark 15: 24-38; Luke 23: 34-46)

 

First Point—He spoke seven words on the Cross.  He prayed for those who crucified Him; He pardoned the thief; He entrusted His Mother to St. John; He said in a loud voice: “I thirst,” and they gave Him gall and vinegar; He said that He was forsaken; He said: “It is consummated!”; He said, “Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit.

 

Second Point—The sun was darkened; rocks rent, graves opened; the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

 

Third Point—They blasphemed Him, saying: “Thou who destroyed the Temple…come down the Cross.” His garments were divided; His side was pierced with a lance, and blood and water flowed forth.

 

 FROM THE CROSS TO THE SEPULCHER, INCLUSIVE

(John 19: 38-42)

 

First Point—He was taken down from the Cross by Joseph and Nicodemus in the presence of His sorrowful Mother.

 

Second Point—His body was carried to the sepulcher, and buried with aloes placed around it.

 

Third Point—Guards were set.

 

THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST OUR LORD AND HIS FIRST APPARITION

 

First Point—He appeared to the Virgin Mary.  Although this is not mentioned in Scripture, it is considered as mentioned when the Scripture says that He appeared to so many others, for the Scripture supposes that we have understanding, as is written “Are you also without understanding?

 

 THE SECOND APPARITION

(Mark 16: 1-11)

 

First Point—Very early in the morning Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome go to the tomb.  They say to one another: “Who will roll the stone back from the entrance of the tomb for us?”

 

Second Point—They see the stone rolled back and an angel who says: “You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth… He has risen, He is not here.

 

Third Point—He appeared to Mary, who remained near the tomb after the others had departed.

 

THE THIRD APPARITION

(Matt. 28: 8-10)

 

First Point— The other two women go from the tomb with great fear and joy.  They want to announce the resurrection of the disciples.

 

Second Point—Christ Our Lord appeared to them on the way, and said to them, “Hail!” and they came up to Him, and prostrated themselves at His feet, and adored Him.

 

Third Point—Jesus said to them: “Do not be afraid; go, take word to my brethren that they are to set out Galilee: there they shall see Me.

 

THE FOURTH APPARITION

(Luke 24:10-12; and 33-34)

 

First Point—When Peter heard from the women that Christ had risen, he hastened to the tomb.

 

Second Point—He entered the tomb and saw nothing but the linen cloths with which the Body of Christ Our Lord had been covered.

 

Third Point—While Peter was thinking about these things, Christ appeared to him.  Therefore the Apostles said: “The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon.

 

THE FIFTH APPARITION

(Luke 24: 13-35)

 

First Point—He appeared to the disciples, who were on the way to Emmaus and were talking of Christ.

 

Second Point—He reproaches them, and shows them by the Scriptures that Christ had to die and rise again: “O foolish ones and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Did not Christ have to suffer these things before entering into His glory?

 

Third Point—At their entreaties, He remained with them until He gave them Communion; then He disappeared.  And they returned to the disciples and told them how they had known Him in the Communion.

 

THE SIXTH APPARITION

(John 20: 19-23)

 

First Point—The disciples, except Thomas, were gathered together, “for fear of the Jews.

 

Second Point—Jesus appeared to them, the doors being closed, and standing in their midst said: “Peace be to you.

 

Third Point—He gives them the Holy Ghost saying to them: “Receive the  Holy Ghost; Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

 

THE SEVENTH APPARITION

(John 20: 24-29)

 

First Point—Thomas was incredulous since he had not been present at the preceding apparition, and said: “Unless I see…I will not believe.”

 

Second Point—Eight days later Jesus appeared to them, the doors being shut, and said to Thomas: “Bring here thy finger and see… and be not unbelieving, but believing.”

 

Third Point—Thomas believing, said: “My Lord and my God.” And Christ said to him: “Blessed are they who have not seen, and have believed.”

 

THE EIGHTH APPARITION

(John 21: 1-17)

 

First Point—Jesus manifested Himself to seven of His disciples who were fishing.  They had been fishing all night and had caught nothing.  At His command they cast forth the net and now they were unable to draw it up the great number of fishes.

 

Second Point—John recognized Him by this miracle, and said to Peter “It is the Lord.” Peter cast himself into the sea and came to Christ.

 

Third Point—He gave them part of a broiled fish and bread to eat.  After he had questioned Peter three times on his love for Him, He commended His sheep to him, saying: “Feed My sheep.

 

THE NINTH APPARITION

(Matt. 28: 16-20)

 

First Point—At the command of the Lord, the disciples went to Mount Thabor.

 

Second Point—Christ appeared to them, and said: “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

 

Third Point—He sent them to preach throughout the world, saying: “Go, therefore, and make disciple of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

 

THE TENTH APPARITION

(1 Corinth 15: 6)

 

Then He was seen by more than five hundred brethren at one time.

 

THE ELEVENTH APPARITION

(1 Corinth 15:7)

 

After that He was seen by James.

 

THE TWELFTH APPARITION

 

He appeared to Joseph of Arimathea,as may be piously thought, and as we read in the Lives of the Saints

 

THE THIRTEENTH APPARITION

(1 Corinth 15:8)

 

After His Ascension He appeared to St. Paul:— And last of all, as by one born out of due time, He was seen also by me.

He appeared also in soul to the holy fathers in Limbo, and after He had freed them and take His Body again, He appeared many times to the disciples and discoursed with them.

 

THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST OUR LORD

(Acts 1:1-11)

 

First Point—After Christ Our Lord had manifested Himself for forty days to His Apostles, giving them many proofs and signs, and speaking of the Kingdom of God, He commanded them to await in Jerusalem the Holy Ghost that He had promised them.

 

Second Point—He led them to Mt. Olivet And He was lifted up before their eyes, and a cloud took Him out of their sight.

 

Third Point—While they were looking up to heaven, angels said to them: “Men of Galilee why do you stand looking up to heaven? This Jesus Who has been taken up from you into heaven, shall come in the same way as you have seen Him going up to heaven.

 

This work has been a labor of love brought to our readers by the staff of Catholic Candle.  It is our desire that many will draw spiritual fruit from St. Ignatius’s Spiritual Exercises.  For this reason we have tried to preserve them for the future.  These Exercises have had a huge impact on the lives of many including many of the Church’s saints and our staff longed to make them available to the public.

Women should Wear Dresses and Skirts, Not Pants – Part 3

Catholic Candle note: The article below is part 3 of an article the first part of which is found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/02/19/women-should-wear-dresses-and-skirts-not-pants/

The second part of this article is found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/03/21/women-should-wear-dresses-and-skirts-not-pants-part-2/

This article is a companion article to our article about Mary-like Neckline Modesty, which can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2023/05/21/marylike-neckline-modesty/

Both of these articles apply to girls as well as women and assist them in fulfilling the role and great work for which God created women.  Read more about this role and great work here: https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/02/the-role-and-work-that-god-gave-to-woman/

Part 3

Recap of parts 1 & 2

In part one of this article, we saw five reasons why men (as well as women) need to understand the Catholic standards of modesty for women (and men).

The article then lists four reasons why women should not wear pants:

1.    It is objectively a sin against the revealed Divine Law for a woman to wear pants;

2.    It is objectively a sin of lewdness[1] under the Natural Law for a woman to wear pants, even apart from the issue of pants being more revealing of a woman’s body;

3.    A woman who wears pants objectively commits a sin of feminist usurpation of man’s role and “nature” and denial of her own “nature” and role in God’s plan; and

4.    A woman wearing pants objectively sins because pants are immodest for her due to their revealing too much of her figure.

Then the article’s first two parts look at the first two of those reasons.  Below, is the third reason why women should wear dresses and skirts and not pants.

3. It is a Sin for a Woman to Wear Pants  because it is a Feminist Usurpation of Man’s Role and “Nature” and is also a Denial of Her Own “Nature” and Her Own Role in God’s Plan.

Above, we saw that women wearing pants is a sin against the revealed Divine Law and against the Natural Law.  But besides that, women wearing pants is a declaration promoting feminism.  This is because feminists wear men’s clothes to challenge the natural order that the man is the head of the family.

It is evident to society at large that there is a clear connection between feminism and women wearing pants.  For example, the New York Times published a lengthy article concerning how it first became “normal” in the 1970s for women to wear pants and the Times called its article Feminism’s Effect on Fashion.[2]

Along somewhat the same lines, here is how actress Elizabeth Taylor characterized her feminism:

I’m loud and I’m vulgar, and I wear the pants in the house because somebody’s got to, but I am not a monster.  I’m not.[3]

Look at her interesting word choice.  A monster is something strange, unnatural, and abnormal.  She is saying: “I am loud, unfeminine, and wear pants.  But I don’t want you to think that I am an abnormal woman.”  Elizabeth Taylor is trying to deny the obvious: viz., her being the way she is does make her an unwomanly woman – which is something strange, unnatural, and abnormal.

Here is how a History of Women Wearing Pants connects pants to feminism:     

Nothing says equality [viz., with men] more than a nice [sic] pair of pants.  In the language of clothes, pants equal power.  Pants on a woman disrupt the status quo.  They certainly aren’t “lady-like.”[4]

These words recognize that wearing pants opposes the “nature” that God gave to woman.

We commonly express authority in the home and family (and even in other situations) by saying that a person “wears the pants in the family”.  The expression “wearing the pants” refers to wearing men’s clothes and this is connected to and represents man’s role in the family.  So, for example, one dictionary defines “wear the pants” to mean “to be in charge in or control of a relationship”.[5]

So, when a woman wears pants, it is a declaration by her actions that she claims to be in charge and is “wearing the pants” in the family.  But this is contrary to what God intended a woman to be, i.e.:

  Quiet and meek;[6] and

  Subject to her husband.[7]

It is no wonder that wearing pants changes a woman’s outlook and her relationship with those around her!  She is “wearing the pants” indicating that she is “in charge or in control of a relationship”.  This not only indicates promotion of the evil of feminism, but this has real-life influence on her and those around her.  Here is how Cardinal Siri warned his flock about the evil effects caused by women wearing pants:

Notification about Women Wearing Male Clothing

The wearing of men’s dress by women affects firstly the woman herself, by changing the feminine psychology proper to women; secondly it affects the woman as wife of her husband, by tending to vitiate relationships between the sexes; thirdly it affects the woman as mother of her children by harming her dignity in her children’s eyes.  Each of these points is to be carefully considered in turn:

A.   Male Dress Changes the Psychology of Women.

In truth, the motive impelling women to wear men’s dress is always that of imitating, nay, of competing with, the man who is considered stronger, less tied down, more independent.  This motivation shows clearly that male dress is the visible aid to bringing about a mental attitude of being “like a man”.
Secondly, ever since men have been men, the clothing a person wears demands, imposes, and modifies that person’s gestures, attitudes, and behavior, such that from merely being worn outside, clothing comes to impose a particular frame of mind inside.

Then let us add that a woman wearing man’s clothes always more or less indicates her reacting to her femininity as though it is an issue of inferiority when in fact it is only diversity.  The perversion of her psychology is clear to be seen.

These reasons, summing up many more, are enough to warn us how wrongly women are made to think by the wearing of men’s dress.

B.   Male Dress Tends to Vitiate Relationships between Women and Men.

In truth, when relationships between the two sexes unfold with the coming of age, an instinct of mutual attraction is predominant.  The essential basis of this attraction is a diversity between the two sexes which is made possible only by their complementing or completing one another.  If then this “diversity” becomes less obvious because one of its major external signs is eliminated and because the normal psychological structure is weakened, what results is the alteration of a fundamental factor in the relationship.

The problem goes further still.  Mutual attraction between the sexes is preceded both naturally, and in order of time, by that sense of shame [shyness] which holds the rising instincts in check, imposes respect upon them, and tends to lift to a higher level of mutual esteem and healthy fear everything that those instincts would push onwards to uncontrolled acts.  To change that clothing which by its diversity reveals and upholds nature’s limits and defense-works, is to flatten out the distinctions and to help pull down the vital defense-works of the sense of shame.

It is at least to hinder that sense.  And when the sense of shame [shyness] is hindered from putting on the brakes, then relationships between men and women sink degradingly down to pure sensuality, devoid of all mutual respect or esteem.

Experience is there to tell us that when woman is de-feminized, then defenses are undermined and weakness increases.


C.   Male Dress Harms the Dignity of the Mother in Her Children’s Eyes.

All children have an instinct for the sense of dignity and decorum of their mother.  Analysis of the first inner crisis of children when they awaken to life around them even before they enter upon adolescence, shows how much the sense of their mother counts.  Children are as sensitive as can be on this point.  Adults have usually left all that behind them and think no more on it.  But we would do well to recall to mind the severe demands that children instinctively make of their own mother, and the deep and even terrible reactions roused in them by observation of their mother’s misbehavior.  Many lines of later life are here traced out – and not for good – in these early inner dramas of infancy and childhood.

The child may not know the definition of exposure, frivolity or infidelity, but he possesses an instinctive sixth sense to recognize them when they occur, to suffer from them, and be bitterly wounded by them in his soul.[8]

This is the third reason it is a sin for women to wear pants.

(To be continued)

 



[1]           Lewdness (noun): indecency or obscenity; vulgar sexual character or behavior.  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lewdness

[4]           https://the-toast.net/2014/08/07/wearing-pants-brief-history/  Bracketed words added for clarity.

[6]           “Let wives be subject to their husbands:  that if any believe not the word, they

may be won without the word, by the conversation of the wives.  Considering your chaste conversation with fear.    Whose adorning let it not be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel.  But the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and a meek spirit….”  1 Peter, 3:1-4.

[7]           St. Paul teaches: “Therefore, as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.”  Ephesians, 5:24. 

[8]           Quoted from Notification by Cardinal Siri published on June 12, 1960 (bracketed words added for clarity).

In case you missed it — April 2024

Catholic Candle note:  Occasionally, we analyze the liberal statements of the SSPX.  Someone could wonder:

Why mention the SSPX any longer, since they are unimportant as merely one of very many compromise groups? 

It is true that a priest (or group) is of small importance when he (or the group) is merely one of countless compromisers.  By contrast, an uncompromising priest is of great importance, even though he is only one.

However, regarding the “new” SSPX: we sometimes mention them for at least these five reasons, motivated by charity:

Ø  New Catholic Candle readers might not be sufficiently informed of the “new” SSSPX’s liberalism to avoid that group.  Out of charity for them we occasionally provide these warnings to help these new readers appreciate the danger of the N-SSPX.

Ø  Some longtime Catholic Candle readers might forget the N-SSPX poison, or vacillate in their resolution to stay away from the N-SSPX if they never received a reminder warning about the danger of the N-SSPX.  This is like the fact that all it takes for many people to become conciliar is to never be reminded about the errors of Vatican II and the conciliar church.  Out of charity for them we occasionally provide these reminders for readers who would otherwise “forget” the danger of the N-SSPX.

Ø  The N-SSPX serves as an important study case to examine how leaving the truth often happens.  It is a warning to us all about a very common way to depart from the truth and become unfaithful.  Out of charity for ourselves we occasionally provide these insights about becoming unfaithful by taking this common road of compromise the N-SSPX is taking.

Ø  Over time, the N-SSPX provides us with a thorough catalogue of liberal compromises, and studying those compromises and errors with the contrasting Traditional Catholic truth is a helpful means of studying our Faith and guarding ourselves from the principal errors of our time.  This helps us to fulfill our duty of continually studying the doctrines of our Faith.  Out of charity for ourselves, we use the occasion of the N-SSPX’s liberalism to study our Traditional Catholic Faith better and the corresponding N-SSPX liberalism.

 

Ø  If the SSPX ever abjured its liberalism, it could do great good as it used to do, without the grave problem of doubtful ordinations like most other groups.

 

For those readers who are firm in their resolution to completely avoid supporting the N-SSPX, they can receive just as much of the substance of those Catholic Candle articles, if they substitute the phrase “a liberal could say” anytime they read “the SSPX teaches”.

The Liberal “New” SSPX Promotes the Error
That Everyone Is in the State of Grace

Sanctifying Grace is the soul’s participation in the Life and Nature of God. [1]  That is, Sanctifying Grace is God’s Life within us.  Thus, e.g., five of the Church’s seven Sacraments are called “Sacraments of the Living” because they must not be received by someone who does not already have God’s Life (Sanctifying Grace) within him.

Recently, The “new” liberal SSPX taught (heretically[2]) that we are all, always, unchangeably, in the state of Sanctifying Grace.  Here are the N-SSPX’s words:   

What never changes, no matter the state of things [is that] the divine life is in us.[3]

This statement is heretical for two reasons: 

v  First, it is false to claim that everyone possesses Sanctifying Grace – i.e., that the Divine Life Itself is within everyone – for the majority of men do not possess it.
 

v  Second, it is false to claim that for those who at one time possessed grace, this possession “never changes, no matter the state of things”, as if this Divine Life could never be lost.

Many, even of those who call themselves “traditional Catholics”, vacillate between the state of grace and the state of mortal sin, whereas, the N-SSPX says that “what never changes” is that grace, “the divine life”, is in us.

This N-SSPX teaching promotes universal salvation.  But it should not surprise us that the “new” SSPX promotes universal salvation, since that group promotes the vice of presumption in these words:

The virtue of hope gives us this certitude … we will see our God, that we will possess Him and willl [sic] be united to Him forever.

In other words, the “new” SSPX says Hope makes us sure we will go to heaven.[4]  Faithful and informed Catholics know that this is not the description of the Virtue of Hope but rather of the vice of presumption.

Conclusion: Let us fulfil our duty to regularly study our Catholic Faith.  Let us stay away from the “new” SSPX because it wars against that Faith!



[1]           God is His own nature and His own Life and by grace we participate in God’s Life and Nature.  Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas teaches this truth:

[T]he light of grace, which is a participation of the Divine Nature, is something besides the infused virtues which are derived from and are ordained to this light ….

Summa, Ia IIae, Q.110, a.3, respondeo

See also, St. John of the Cross, the Mystical Doctor of the Church, where he teaches the same truth: Spiritual Canticle, Stanza 38, §4.

St. Peter refers to Sanctifying Grace as making us “partakers of the Divine Nature”.  2 Peter, 1:4.

[2]           Faithful and informed Catholics know that heresy is an error about the Catholic Faith.  Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas explains this crucial truth:

 

We are speaking of heresy now as denoting a corruption of the Christian Faith.  Now it does not imply a corruption of the Christian faith, if a man has a false opinion in matters that are not of faith, for instance, in questions of geometry and so forth, which cannot belong to the faith by any means; but only when a person has a false opinion about things belonging to the faith.

 

Now a thing may be of the faith in two ways, as stated above; in one way, directly and principally, e.g. the articles of faith; in another way, indirectly and secondarily, e.g. those matters, the denial of which leads to the corruption of some article of faith; and there may be heresy in either way, even as there can be faith.

 

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.11, a.2, respondeo (emphasis added).

 

[3]           Here is the full quote, which is an ad for a book which the Angelus Press is selling:

 

The Courage to Be Afraid is remarkably different from other spiritual books.  It is a tour de force that examines many aspects of the Christian life, yet, always returning to a simple, powerful theme: we have to let God act.  Fr. Molinie addresses himself to us, children of the modern world, in order to recall us forcefully to what never changes, no matter the state of things: the divine life is in us, and will transform us if we surrender to it.  “God’s love is a consuming fire”.

 

Quoted from the Angelus Press sales flyer sent to its mailing list about February 20, 2024 (emphasis added).

[4]           Inside the front cover of the November-December 2016 Angelus Magazine, Fr. Wegner declares that the Virtue of Hope is being sure we will go to heaven (which is a pernicious conciliar doctrine).  Informed Catholics will immediately recognize that this is the vice of presumption, not the Virtue of Hope!  Here is Fr. Wegner’s entire statement, which he printed in extra-large letters:

Faith makes us know God: we believe in Him with all our strength but we do not see Him. Our faith, therefore, needs to be supported by the certitude that some day we will see our God, that we will possess Him and willl [sic] be united to Him forever. The virtue of hope gives us this certitude by presenting God to us as our infinite good and our eternal reward.

Emphasis added; bracketed words added at the SSPX typos.

For a fuller explanation of the Catholic virtue of Hope and the opposite and contrasting vice of presumption, read this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-the-new-sspx-teaches-the-vice-of-presumption-as-if-it-were-the-virtue-of-hope

 

Words to Live by – from Catholic Tradition

The Power of the Sign of the Cross

Let us remember that each time we make the Sign of the Cross:

  We offer the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ to the Eternal Father;

  We thank Our Lord for dying for us on the Cross; and

  We offer the infinite merits of the Passion for our own souls and for the salvation of the world.

Each time we make the Sign of the Cross this way:

  we console the Heart of Jesus;

  we obtain pardon for our sins; and

  we help to save the world from great evils.

Taken from An Easy Way to Become a Saint, Fr. Paul O’Sullivan, O.P., Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., Rockford, Ill., 1990, Ch. 5. p. 36.

Women should Wear Dresses and Skirts, Not Pants – Complete

Catholic Candle note: The article below is a companion article to our article about Mary-like Neckline Modesty, which can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2023/05/21/marylike-neckline-modesty/

Both of these articles apply to girls as well as women and assist them in fulfilling the role and great work for which God created women.  Read more about this role and great work here: https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/02/the-role-and-work-that-god-gave-to-woman/

 

Women should Wear Dresses and Skirts,
Not Pants

We live in a pagan world (as we see all around us).  Even many Catholic women adopt the evil fashions they see all around them.  Let us inquire whether women should ever wear pants.

But first, let us inquire whether this issue is one that only women need to know about.


Is it Important for Men (as well as Women) to Know the Catholic Standard of Modesty for Women?

Men and women should all care about feminine modesty and know the standards of Catholic modesty.  It is obvious that a woman should understand and live the Catholic standard of modesty so that she can please God, edify her neighbor, be a good example, teach her daughters, and avoid sin.

But there are five reasons why men should know these standards too:

1.    It is important for men and boys to know the standards of female modesty because they have a duty to avert their eyes from women’s and girl’s attire which does not comply with such modesty standards.

 

This is obvious.  The main reason why women and girls have standards of modesty (and must not “wear whatever they want to”) is because there are men and boys who will look at them. 

Women must cover up for the sake of the men.  This is common decency and is a minimum charity that they owe to their (male) neighbors.  Women would be callously disregarding the salvation of men (and themselves) if women dressed without concern for the temptations their attire would cause in men.

This is like the fact that a person must not wildly swing a butcher knife “whenever he wants to” without regard for the risk of injuring those around him.  In fact, immodesty is more dangerous than the butcher knife because immodesty can kill the soul whereas a butcher knife can only kill the body. 

Of course, it is also true that men must dress modestly for the sake of the women too.  This is men’s minimum charity toward their (female) neighbors.  However, there are three reasons that female immodesty is a greater problem:

  Women are the more beautiful sex and so are more attractive;

  Men are more prone than women are to sins of impurity by looking impurely at the opposite sex, as is evident by the fact that the filthy practice of viewing pornography is a sin which is far more frequently committed by men rather than by women; and

  Men and women both are more inclined to weaken on women’s standards of modesty than on men’s modesty.  This is because women have a stronger focus on pleasing men by their (i.e., women’s) appearance, and men have less of a focus on pleasing women by their own (i.e., the men’s) appearance but have a greater tendency to be pleased by women’s appearance (than are women focused on and pleased by men’s appearance).  Here are three signs that this is true:

first, women desire and usually have a far larger wardrobe and wear far more jewelry than men do;


second,
women take many other pains to look attractive for men, such as wearing makeup, getting their hair curled or permed, etc., and

third, men’s clothes and shoes are more practical and serviceable.  By contrast, women’s clothes and shoes are much more likely to be less comfortable because they are more designed to please men rather than for comfort.  (For example, women’s shoes are designed to make a woman’s foot look smaller.) 
 

2.    It is important for an unmarried man who is called to the married vocation (and not to the life of consecrated virginity) to have prominently featured in his “blue print” of the future spouse he seeks, that she possess and love this great treasure of the Catholic standard of holy modesty; 

3.    It is important for a man to know the Catholic standard of feminine modesty so that he can give moral support and defend the modesty of good women against scoffers, mockers, and other enemies of Our Lord.  (For example, it is all too often that women who take modesty seriously are made to feel prudish and isolated, especially by other women who have a more liberal dress code.)  Men should be gallant and gentlemanly.  They should defend women, especially good women who are living the standards of modesty and other virtues;

 

4.    It is important for a man to know the Catholic standard of feminine modesty because he will be responsible for guiding his wife and daughters (when God sends him his own family) and will be ultimately responsible for this standard being implemented in his own home and family; and

 

5.    It is important for a man to know the Catholic standard of feminine modesty so he can love this beautiful virtue and admire and appreciate the Mary-like women and girls who practice it.

 

Four Reasons Women Should Not Wear Pants

There are four reasons why it is a sin for women to wear pants:

1.    It is objectively a sin against the revealed Divine Law for a woman to wear pants;

2.    It is objectively a sin of lewdness[1] under the Natural Law for a woman to wear pants, even apart from the issue of pants being more revealing of a woman’s body;

3.    A woman who wears pants objectively commits a sin of feminist usurpation of man’s role and “nature” and denial of her own “nature” and role in God’s plan; and

4.    A woman wearing pants objectively sins because pants are immodest for her due to their revealing too much of her figure.

Below, we consider each of these reasons.


1.     It is Objectively a Sin against the
Revealed Divine Law for Women to Wear Pants.

God has revealed His law that it is evil for a woman to wear a man’s clothes (and also for men to wear women’s clothes).  Here are the words of God’s law:

Let not a woman wear men’s clothes nor a man use women’s clothes.  For they are abominable with the Lord who do such things.

 

Deuteronomy, 22:5.

One article of man’s clothing is pants.  Although at any time in history, one can find deviant persons wearing clothes which are taboo in order to get attention or to shock those around them, nonetheless, it only relatively-recently that the enemies of Christ succeeded to such an extent in their cultural revolution that society more generally was desensitized to women wearing pants so that it became no longer shocking to most people.  This occurred roughly in the revolutionary 1960s, when society also became desensitized to other evils such as to tattoos[2], to cremation[3], to rock and roll “music”, and to wives and mothers being career women[4].  These things are still sins despite most people accepting them.

One history of women wearing pants (published by Time Magazine), noted that the popular fashion magazine, Vogue, did not print a picture of a woman wearing pants until 1939 and that people were shocked by that picture.  Here is that entry in that history:

It wasn’t until 1939 that Vogue pictured its first woman wearing slacks in a spread, at a time when those garments still weren’t widely worn by women and had the power to shock.[5]

Citing a book on women’s clothes and their style during the 1900s, another history called it “radical” that society began to accept women wearing pants.  Here are the words of this history:

“One of the most radical developments for women was the gradual acceptance of trousers, which were no longer considered either eccentric or strictly utilitarian,” write historians Valerie Mendes and Amy de la Haye in their book, 20th Century Fashion.[6]

This history correctly calls this change “radical” because, as a third history remarks, “wearing trousers was considered shocking by many women at the beginning of the 20th century”.[7]

Lastly, a fourth history (of women wearing pants) points specifically to the cultural revolution of the 1960s as the turning point in which women in pants had become common enough that there was no longer much outrage at the practice.  Here is how that history phrases it:

By the time the counter-culture movement of the 1960s had reached its height, a woman in pants wasn’t much to be outraged by, even if in workplaces pants remained the preserve of men for a while longer.[8]

In a 1977 New York Times retrospective on feminism’s effect on women’s “fashion”, the newspaper explains that:

The early 1970s was the period [in which] … women seeking to express their individuality wore pants.[9]

This, of course, is because such women thought themselves to be showing “individuality” because women wearing this men’s garment was still uncommon then.

This 1977 New York Times article continued, pointing particularly to the influence of a fashion corrupter named Calvin Klein, who led this revolution in women’s “fashion”:

Calvin Klein was instantly successful with clothes that were influenced by menswear — pants, tailored coats and jackets. “Ten years ago [i.e., 1967] a woman wore pants as a way of showing daring and security in herself,” he says ….[10]

The reason why it was considered “daring” for a woman to wear pants in the 1960s and early 1970s, is because society considered her to be provocative by wearing men’s clothes.

So, we see that our culture was not degraded enough until roughly the 1960s or 1970s, and only then was society callous enough to no longer be shocked by women wearing these men’s garments.

It is true that a person could wonder whether women wearing pants was accepted in other parts of the world earlier.  It seems that in some places in the world, where a false and corrupt “religion” formed a different and corrupt “culture”, women wearing pants was accepted earlier because the “culture” was worse. 

However, in former Christendom (the Western World), which had been formed by the Catholic Faith, and by true Catholic culture, women wearing pants was not generally accepted earlier.  It was only when (former) Christendom had slid far enough into degradation that people were no longer shocked by women wearing pants.  Again, this was roughly in the 1960s – 1970s.  Only then had Our Lord’s enemies sufficiently prevailed in their cultural revolution.

2.     It is a Sin against the Natural Law for
Women to Wear Pants.

A person could suppose that it might have been permissible for women to wear pants and other men’s clothes (or for men to wear women’s clothes) if God had not forbidden this in the revealed Law in Sacred Scripture.  But that supposition is false because such cross-dressing is forbidden by the Natural Law, too.[11]

This prohibition under the Natural Law is especially because wearing the clothes of the other sex causes lewdness.  Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church, teaches this truth:

It is in itself sinful for a woman to wear man’s clothes, or vice versa, especially since this can cause lewdness.[12]

Pants are men’s clothes and it is a sin for women to wear pants just as it is a sin for a man to wear a dress because dresses are a woman’s clothes.  This particular reason why it is sinful for women to wear the clothes of the opposite sex does not depend on how much such clothes reveal a woman’s body.  For example, even if she should wear a complete men’s suit with a dress shirt buttoned up to her neck,  nevertheless, it is inherently sinful to do so.

It would also be a sin of cross-dressing for a man to wear a dress even if it were a “very modest” dress, precisely because it is woman’s attire.  The same example (a man wearing a dress) is all-the-more cringe-worthy if the dress is pink calico with lots of lace and frills as well as accompanied by broaches, pearl necklaces, and 4-inch-high spike heels.  But those conditions and accessories are not necessary circumstances for the man to have committed the sin of cross-dressing (although such feminine accessories might increase the sin).

This is because, as St. Thomas explains, such cross-dressing is a cause of lewdness and sensuality.  This lewdness arises because it is lewd for a man to insert his body into women’s clothes (i.e., for him to commingle his body with women’s clothes).  Similarly, it is lewd for a woman to insert her body into a man’s clothes or commingle her body with man’s clothes.

Again, this reason we are discussing now (why it is a sin for men and women to cross-dress) does not pertain to whether a woman’s figure is more revealed in pants (which it is) but pertains to the fact that pants are men’s clothes.  In other words, it is a sin for a woman to wear men’s clothes regardless of whether such clothes would immodestly reveal her body.

This is the second reason it is a sin for women to wear pants.


3. It is a Sin for a Woman to Wear Pants  because it is a Feminist Usurpation of Man’s Role and “Nature” and is also a Denial of Her Own “Nature” and Her Own Role in God’s Plan.

Above, we saw that women wearing pants is a sin against the revealed Divine Law and against the Natural Law.  But besides that, women wearing pants is a declaration promoting feminism.  This is because feminists wear men’s clothes to challenge the natural order that the man is the head of the family.

It is evident to society at large that there is a clear connection between feminism and women wearing pants.  For example, the New York Times published a lengthy article concerning how it first became “normal” in the 1970s for women to wear pants and the Times called its article Feminism’s Effect on Fashion.[13]

Along somewhat the same lines, here is how actress Elizabeth Taylor characterized her feminism:

I’m loud and I’m vulgar, and I wear the pants in the house because somebody’s got to, but I am not a monster.  I’m not.[14]

Look at her interesting word choice.  A monster is something strange, unnatural, and abnormal.  She is saying: “I am loud, unfeminine, and wear pants.  But I don’t want you to think that I am an abnormal woman.”  Elizabeth Taylor is trying to deny the obvious: viz., her being the way she is does make her an unwomanly woman – which is something strange, unnatural, and abnormal.

Here is how a History of Women Wearing Pants connects pants to feminism:    

Nothing says equality [viz., with men] more than a nice [sic] pair of pants.  In the language of clothes, pants equal power.  Pants on a woman disrupt the status quo.  They certainly aren’t “lady-like.”[15]

These words recognize that wearing pants opposes the “nature” that God gave to woman.

We commonly express authority in the home and family (and even in other situations) by saying that a person “wears the pants in the family”.  The expression “wearing the pants” refers to wearing men’s clothes and this is connected to and represents man’s role in the family.  So, for example, one dictionary defines “wear the pants” to mean “to be in charge in or control of a relationship”.[16]

So, when a woman wears pants, it is a declaration by her actions that she claims to be in charge and is “wearing the pants” in the family.  But this is contrary to what God intended a woman to be, i.e.:

Ø  Quiet and meek;[17] and

Ø  Subject to her husband.[18]

It is no wonder that wearing pants changes a woman’s outlook and her relationship with those around her!  She is “wearing the pants” indicating that she is “in charge or in control of a relationship”.  This not only indicates promotion of the evil of feminism, but this has real-life influence on her and those around her.  Here is how Cardinal Siri warned his flock about the evil effects caused by women wearing pants:

Notification about Women Wearing Male Clothing

The wearing of men’s dress by women affects firstly the woman herself, by changing the feminine psychology proper to women; secondly it affects the woman as wife of her husband, by tending to vitiate relationships between the sexes; thirdly it affects the woman as mother of her children by harming her dignity in her children’s eyes.  Each of these points is to be carefully considered in turn:

A.   Male Dress Changes the Psychology of Women.

In truth, the motive impelling women to wear men’s dress is always that of imitating, nay, of competing with, the man who is considered stronger, less tied down, more independent.  This motivation shows clearly that male dress is the visible aid to bringing about a mental attitude of being “like a man”. 

Secondly, ever since men have been men, the clothing a person wears demands, imposes, and modifies that person’s gestures, attitudes, and behavior, such that from merely being worn outside, clothing comes to impose a particular frame of mind inside.

Then let us add that a woman wearing man’s clothes always more or less indicates her reacting to her femininity as though it is an issue of inferiority when in fact it is only diversity.  The perversion of her psychology is clear to be seen.

These reasons, summing up many more, are enough to warn us how wrongly women are made to think by the wearing of men’s dress.

B.   Male Dress Tends to Vitiate Relationships between Women and Men.

In truth, when relationships between the two sexes unfold with the coming of age, an instinct of mutual attraction is predominant.  The essential basis of this attraction is a diversity between the two sexes which is made possible only by their complementing or completing one another.  If then this “diversity” becomes less obvious because one of its major external signs is eliminated and because the normal psychological structure is weakened, what results is the alteration of a fundamental factor in the relationship.

The problem goes further still.  Mutual attraction between the sexes is preceded both naturally, and in order of time, by that sense of shame [shyness] which holds the rising instincts in check, imposes respect upon them, and tends to lift to a higher level of mutual esteem and healthy fear everything that those instincts would push onwards to uncontrolled acts.  To change that clothing which by its diversity reveals and upholds nature’s limits and defense-works, is to flatten out the distinctions and to help pull down the vital defense-works of the sense of shame.

It is at least to hinder that sense.  And when the sense of shame [shyness] is hindered from putting on the brakes, then relationships between men and women sink degradingly down to pure sensuality, devoid of all mutual respect or esteem.

Experience is there to tell us that when woman is de-feminized, then defenses are undermined and weakness increases.


C.   Male Dress Harms the Dignity of the Mother in Her Children’s Eyes.

All children have an instinct for the sense of dignity and decorum of their mother.  Analysis of the first inner crisis of children when they awaken to life around them even before they enter upon adolescence, shows how much the sense of their mother counts.  Children are as sensitive as can be on this point.  Adults have usually left all that behind them and think no more on it.  But we would do well to recall to mind the severe demands that children instinctively make of their own mother, and the deep and even terrible reactions roused in them by observation of their mother’s misbehavior.  Many lines of later life are here traced out – and not for good – in these early inner dramas of infancy and childhood.

The child may not know the definition of exposure, frivolity or infidelity, but he possesses an instinctive sixth sense to recognize them when they occur, to suffer from them, and be bitterly wounded by them in his soul.[19]


4.     A woman wearing pants also sins because pants are immodest for her due to their revealing too much of her figure.

Let’s start this section with a recap to see the connection between rebellion and immodesty:

Recap of the Three Types of Rebellion Present When Women Wear Pants

The devil is the inventor of sin, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches.[20]  The devil is the first revolutionary and his battle cry is “non serviam!”  We see Satan’s rebellious spirit in his inducing women to wear pants:

  He leads their rebellion against God, getting them to wear men’s clothes against the revealed Divine Law.  Deuteronomy, 22:5.

  He leads their rebellion against Nature (getting them to wear men’s clothes) against the Natural Law.  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.169, a.2, ad 3.

  He leads their rebellion against men’s authority (getting women to wear men’s clothes) as a feminist rebellion against living the role in life that God intends for women.

But rebellion is only one of Satan’s favorite weapons.  Immodesty is the other.


Satan Promotes Immodesty at the Same Time, Using These Rebellions

Considering that Satan chooses women wearing pants as a tool of rebellion, we would expect (even before looking into the issue) that Satan’s tactics would not only foment rebellion but would also promote impurity, since impurity, like disobedience, is one of the most common sins that Satan promotes. 

Satan knows what Our Lady warned at Fatima that “more people go to hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason.”[21]  Thus, Satan promotes impurity because he knows impurity is such an effective tool for damning souls.

Upon reflection, we see that our preliminary expectation is correct that Satan’s tool of women wearing pants combines the sin of rebellion with the sin of immodesty because pants are too revealing of a woman’s body.   

Let us now look at this issue of pants being immodest on a woman.


Different Dangers for Men and Women Regarding Impurity

Men and women are different and possess different tendencies towards impurity.  Men are more easily led into sins against purity through their sense of sight.  For this reason, modesty for men chiefly requires custody of their eyes as the guard of purity. 

By contrast, women are more tempted in matters of impurity through vanity by seeking to attract the eyes of men by excessive exposure of their (viz., the women’s) bodies.  Thus, it is in the “nature” of women that they are more interested in being admired by men for their appearance rather than admiring men’s appearance.  That is why also, that men are more interested in the appearance of women than they are interested in women admiring their appearance.

Of course, this does not mean that men should be unconcerned with the modesty of their own dress or that women should be unconcerned with custody of their eyes.  But the stronger, typical tendencies are for men to encounter dangers against purity because of looking at women, and women to encounter dangers against purity by the way they seek to attract men’s eyes by their appearance.  These different tendencies of the two sexes are why men are the usual consumers of pornography and women are the usual subjects of pornography.

Further, God made woman the more beautiful and attractive sex, and He made women’s bodies more sensual.  Thus, the virtue of modesty requires that this greater attractiveness be concealed with womanly attire, which takes Nature into account.  So, women must wear clothes which cover up more.  They must wear loose-fitting dresses and skirts. 


Three Ways Pants are Immodest for Women

Pants reveal too much of a woman’s figure because:

  Pants make a woman’s legs more visibly defined.  A dress, compared to pants, fits the lower body in a way similar to how a mitten fits a hand, compared to a glove.  Plainly, a glove reveals more of the hand’s shape. (This importance of a woman concealing her feminine silhouette is also the chief reason why modesty requires her to wear a slip under her dress, viz., to avoid the outline of her legs being visible.)

  Pants “allow daylight” (to show between her legs) all of the way up to her private parts.
 

  Pants also reveal more of the contours of a woman’s backside than does a dress or skirt.

So, because women are obliged to dress in a manner that conceals the contours of their bodies, rather than reveals them, this is why they must wear dresses and skirts, not pants. 


Answers to Six Objections

There now remains only for us to answer six objections to this key moral principle (viz., that women should wear dresses or skirts, and not pants):

1.    Objection:  A person could object that some (so-called) “modest” pants can be permissible because they conceal more of a woman’s figure than do “some skirts”. 

Response:  This “justification” only shows that there are some skirts which are immodest also and should never be worn.  Further, although a woman should never wear an immodest skirt, nonetheless, such a skirt does not involve her committing the sins of rebellion which occur in wearing men’s clothes.


2.    Objection:  Couldn’t we say that our modern society has now accepted women wearing pants so that pants have become women’s clothes (as well as men’s clothes)? 

Response:  No.  As we already saw above, pants were not generally accepted by society as “women’s clothes” until relatively recently, when society got sufficiently corrupt so as to accept women wearing pants.  This was in the same period in which society began to accept various other evils (e.g., tattoos[22], cremation[23], rock and roll “music”, and wives and mothers being career women[24]), all of which showed and promoted the degenerateness of society. 

But what is accepted by a corrupt society is not the proper measure by which we should make the determination what is acceptable.  Here is one way that Pope Pius XII teaches this truth:

[A] garment must not be evaluated according to the estimation of a decadent or already-corrupt society, but according to the aspirations of a society which prizes the dignity and seriousness of its public attire.[25]

3.    Objection:  A person could say that women wearing pants is “no big deal” and that “I’m used to it”. 

Response:  Such excuse merely shows that the person has become used to sin and has suffered some moral taint.  Here is one way that Pope Pius XII warned against this attitude:

The most insidious of sophisms, which are usually repeated to justify immodesty, seems to be the same everywhere.  One of these resurrects the ancient saying “let there be no argument about things we are accustomed to”, in order to brand as old fashioned the rebellion of honest people against fashions which are too bold ….[26]

4.    Objection:  Suppose a woman has duties which “require” her to perform activities for which a dress is immodest because the wind blows her dress upwards, or she is on a ladder cleaning, or because of the way she “must” move her limbs during such activity.

Response:  It might be that some activities would require a dress that is longer or of heavier fabric than modesty requires for other activities.  But there are no activities which a woman should perform which cannot be done under appropriate conditions and wearing modest and womanly clothes.  Furthermore, all activities suited for women have been performed in earlier generations, by good women in dresses or skirts.

5.    Objection:  “But where I live it gets so cold in the winter!  So. I ‘need’ to wear pants to stay warm.”

Response:  Cold weather is not a new phenomenon and winter is not a new invention.  Throughout the history of mankind, women have dressed modestly, in womanly clothes, and stayed warm.  But, of course, warm, womanly undergarments will help accomplish this, as well as long winter coats and dresses made of thick fabrics suitable for the season.

6.   Objection: There can’t be anything wrong with a woman wearing pants when she is alone, when no one will see her.

 

Response: 1) Notice that God’s Commandment in Deuteronomy does not forbid cross-dressing only when the person will be seen.  Cross-dressing is forbidden all times.  2) Further, it is a sin of lewdness under the Natural Law to cross-dress even in private.  Perhaps this is easiest to see in the case of a man who, in private only, dresses in a pink calico dress (as in the example given above).  3) Wearing pants changes a woman’s outlook even if she were to wear them only in private, since she is still wearing the “feminist uniform” and still showing (though in private) that she “wears the pants in the family”.  We are creatures of habit and this practice would have a deleterious effect on the woman.  4) It is generally unwholesome for a person to walk around nude without a good reason to do so such as showering, even if no one sees him/her.  Likewise, (although to a lesser degree than nudity), it is unwholesome and sensual for a person to dress indecently even when alone if there is no good reason to do this.


Three Additional Consequences of this Standard of Womanly Modesty

Please note the following consequences that flow directly from the above Catholic requirement of Mary-like modesty that women should never wear pants:

1.    Just as women and girls should not wear pants, this same standard also applies to photographs, paintings, and statues, whether the woman or girl who is depicted is known or unknown.  It would obviously be illogical for a woman to carefully dress modestly herself but also to promote or display scandalous art on her wall (or scandalous pictures of her relatives hung with magnets on her refrigerator, etc.).  For the very same reason that she is forbidden to dress this way, a Catholic is forbidden to promote or display such immodest images.

 

2.    Parents, especially mothers, have a duty to guide their daughters not only to comply with the Catholic standard of modesty but also to love this beautiful virtue.

 

3.    If we somehow come into possession of pants that are meant to be worn by women or girls, we should not give them away or donate them, because then we would become an accomplice or accessory to someone else’s sin of wearing these pants.


Conclusion

From the above considerations, it is clear that women should not wear pants because the virtue of womanly modesty forbids this and also because it is a revolt against God in three ways.

We live in pagan times.  Just as a living organism only stays alive (i.e., remains a living plant or animal), if it resists the corrupting influences (e.g., of bacteria) which are all around it, likewise we must protect the life of our souls (which live the life of grace) by resisting the moral corruption of sin all around us.

Let us beware of rationalizing immodesty by saying that the standard of Mary-like modesty is too old-fashioned and that we live in modern times where the requirements of modesty are weaker.

It is Catholic Common Sense that we should not adopt the dress or other practices of the anti-Christ revolution (including women wearing pants) no matter how many other people do so in our corrupt times.  So, however much the cultural revolution has accepted “unisex” clothes and women dressing in men’s clothes such as pants, nonetheless, when women wear pants “they are abominable with the Lord”.  Deuteronomy, 22:5.

Let us live our Catholic Faith!  We need to restore all things in Christ!  One important aspect of this is for women to dress like women and to not be an abomination to the Lord.

Catholic feminine modesty is a beautiful ornament of a good woman or girl.  All of us – men and women – should love and appreciate this virtue!

 



[1]           Lewdness (noun): indecency or obscenity; vulgar sexual character or behavior.  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lewdness

[2]           Society began to view tattoos as neither shocking nor deviant at roughly the same time (the revolutionary 1960s) as society began considering women wearing pants as acceptable and not shocking.  Read this article here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/tattoos-are-a-sin-to-obtain-and-a-sin-to-display

[3]           Society began to view cremation as neither pagan nor barbaric at roughly the same time (the revolutionary 1960s) as society began considering women wearing pants as acceptable and not shocking.  Read this article here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/cremation-is-barbaric

[4]           Society began to view it as acceptable for wives and mothers to abandon their role in life at roughly the same time (the revolutionary 1960s) as society began considering women wearing pants as acceptable and not shocking.  Read this article here: The Role and Work that God Gave to Woman, https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/02/the-role-and-work-that-god-gave-to-woman/

 

[6]           History of Women Wearing Pants, found here: https://qz.com/quartzy/1597688/a-brief-history-of-women-in-pants

[8]           History of Women Wearing Pants: https://qz.com/quartzy/1597688/a-brief-history-of-women-in-pants

[11]         The Natural Law is what we know is right (or wrong) by the light of the natural reason God gave us.  One example of the Natural Law is that we must never tell a lie.  We naturally know this because we know that the purpose of speech is to convey the truth and so we naturally know that telling a lie is abusing the purpose of speech. 

Here is how St. Thomas explains what the Natural Law is:

[L]aw, being a rule and measure, can be in a person in two ways: in one way, as in him that rules and measures; in another way, as in that which is ruled and measured, since a thing is ruled and measured, in so far as it partakes of the rule or measure.  Wherefore, since all things subject to Divine providence are ruled and measured by the eternal law, as was stated above [in Summa, Ia IIae, Q.91, a.1]; it is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends.  Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident both for itself and for others.  Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law.  Hence the Psalmist after saying (Psalm 4:6): "Offer up the sacrifice of justice," as though someone asked what the works of justice are, adds: "Many say, Who showeth us good things?" in answer to which question he says: "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us": thus implying that the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature’s participation of the eternal law.

Summa, Ia IIae, Q.91, a.2, respondeo.

[12]         Summa, IIa IIae, Q.169, a.2, ad 3.

 

[15]         https://the-toast.net/2014/08/07/wearing-pants-brief-history/  Bracketed words added for clarity.

[17]         “Let wives be subject to their husbands:  that if any believe not the word, they

may be won without the word, by the conversation of the wives.  Considering your chaste conversation with fear.    Whose adorning let it not be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel.  But the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and a meek spirit….”  1 Peter, 3:1-4.

[18]         St. Paul teaches: “Therefore, as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.”  Ephesians, 5:24. 

[19]         Quoted from Notification by Cardinal Siri published on June 12, 1960 (bracketed words added for clarity).

[20]         St. Thomas Aquinas, Lectures on St. John’s Gospel, ch.8, §1250.


[21]          The Whole Truth About Fatima, Frere Michel de la Sante Trinite, Vol. II, Ch.4 appendix II.

[22]         Read about societal acceptance of tattoos not occurring until society became sufficiently corrupt, roughly beginning in the 1960s: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/tattoos-are-a-sin-to-obtain-and-a-sin-to-display.html

[23]         Read about societal acceptance of cremation not occurring until society became sufficiently corrupt, roughly beginning in the 1960s: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/cremation-is-barbaric

 

[24]         Society began to view it as acceptable for wives and mothers to abandon their role in life at roughly the same time (the revolutionary 1960s) as society began considering women wearing pants as acceptable and not shocking.  Read this article here: The Role and Work that God Gave to Woman, https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/02/the-role-and-work-that-god-gave-to-woman/

 

[25]         Pope Pius XII, Address to the Latin Union of High Fashion, November 8, 1957.


[26]        
Pope Pius XII, Address to the Latin Union of High Fashion, November 8, 1957.

Frequent Crosses Needed to Help Us to Turn From Sin

For earthly happiness and eternal happiness, live your life as prescribed for us by the Creator, Who is all-wise and loving.  He knows what is best for us and gives us everything we need.  We may not always see the wisdom of God’s gifts to us, but be assured they are for the best.

Let us never then attribute our losses, our disappointments, our afflictions, our humiliations to the devil or to men, but to God as their real source.  ‘To act otherwise,” says St. Dorothy, ‘would be to do the same as a dog who vents his anger on the stone instead of putting the blame on the hand that threw it at him.’  So let us be careful not to say, ‘So-and-so is the cause of my misfortune.’

Your misfortunes are the work not of this or that person but of God.  And what should give you reassurance is that God, the sovereign Good, is guided in all His actions by His most profound wisdom for holy and supernatural purposes.”[1]

Here is an admirable Prayer When Receiving Your Daily Cross:

Do with me and mine as Thou please.  I ask and desire only three things: Thy love, final perseverance, and the grace always to do Thy holy will.  And if to love Thee thus, I must endure persecution and suffering, I am perfectly satisfied.

Let us then conclude with St. Augustine:

All that happens to us in this world against our will (whether due to men or to other causes) happens to us only by the will of God, by the disposal of Providence, by His orders and under His guidance; and if by the frailty of our understanding we cannot grasp the reason for some event, let us attribute it to Divine Providence, show Him some respect by accepting it from His hand, believe firmly that He does not send it to us without cause.[2]

 

Some find it hard to believe one has to suffer to avoid sin.  But consider this: If you were very, very successful (e.g., in business), it is easier to see that salvation is likely not your top priority, not if you are constantly seeking more awards and honors and even world-wide recognition. 

Now contrast that with how the Saints wanted to leave the world and live and seek salvation in the desert or in the wilderness.  Thus, they earned Heaven. 

Remember, you have to earn Heaven.

Here are some reflections on earning Heaven and the part suffering plays in that:

Suffering is thought by many to be the great evil of life.  Oh, if they could only avoid it!  The truth is that if they did find a way of avoiding it, that would be the greatest evil of their lives.

All about suffering.  Our Lord has given us a most perfect redemption.  He could have dispensed the law of suffering if He so willed.  Why does God, being of infinite goodness and mercy, ask us to suffer?

He does so for the simple reason that suffering is a very great grace.  

Our suffering is a share, a small but most valuable share, in the Passion of our dear Lord.

It is priceless in value – if we only accept it and offer it in union with Christ’s Passion.

He has suffered unspeakable agonies for each of us.  Are we such arrant cowards as to refuse to suffer a little for Him?

How little gratitude we show for all that He has done for us!  The easiest and best way of thanking Him is to offer our daily crosses and trials for love of Him.

The one big trouble about suffering is that we do not know how to suffer.  We have no idea of its merits.

The secret is to suffer with patience and serenity.  Then suffering loses all its sting, all its bitterness.

We need only remember that it is our sweet Lord Himself Who asks us to bear these daily trials for love of Him, suffering loses its horrors.

God gives us abundant strength and grace to bear our crosses, if we ask Him.

Many good and pious Christians never think of asking God to help them to bear their crosses!  Therefore, their crosses weigh heavily on them.

Our sufferings are the purest gold in our lives.  Five minutes’ suffering is of greater worth than twenty years of pleasure and happiness.

One fact well worth remembering is that our daily sufferings, the least as well as the greatest, if borne well, merit for us a crown of martyrdom.       

Suffering, well borne, makes us saints.[3]

In closing, this might be a thought to bear in mind:

If a little suffering makes you impatient now, what will hell fire do?  In truth, you cannot have two joys: you cannot taste the pleasures of this world and afterward reign with Christ.[4]



[1]           Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence, Father Jean Baptiste Saint Jure, S.J., & Saint Claude De La Colombiere, S.J., Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., Rockford, IL, 1983, pp. 25-26.

[2]               Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence, Father Jean Baptiste Saint Jure, S.J., & Saint Claude De La Colombiere, S.J., Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., Rockford, IL, 1983, pp. 17-18.

[3]               An Easy Way to Become a Saint, Fr. Paul O’Sullivan, O.P.,(E.D.M.)  Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., Rockford, IL, 1990, pp. 68-70.

[4]               Imitation of Christ, Thomas à Kempis; Book I, Ch. 25.

Lesson #32 – Making resolutions and dealing with scruples

                    Mary’s School of Sanctity                   

Lesson #32 The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius – VARIOUS TOPICS: MAKING RESOLUTIONS, AND ST. IGNATIUS’ TREATMENT OF SCRUPLES

Due to limited space, we have decided to defer giving St. Ignatius’s additional meditation points until our next lesson.  This current lesson may be considered as really a combination of instructions that we decided to put at the end of our course on the Spiritual Exercises because we did not want to break up the of flow of the progression of the Exercises especially our study of Our Lord’s Life and Death.

Making resolutions —

After concluding the Spiritual Exercises, it is very profitable for us to make some concrete resolutions to help ourselves to amend our lives in earnest.  The following are some practical resolutions we can all make:

1) Have the spirit of penance as Our Lord admonishes us to do to help us refrain from sin and to make reparation for our past sins.[1]  We must practice penance, both passive penance and active penance.

Passive penance is simply patiently accepting circumstances as they occur in our daily lives, whether we experience some illness or some calamity, etc.  There are plenty of crosses in our daily lives that the Good Lord lovingly sends us in order to teach us virtue.  These crosses are more meritorious than self-imposed penances.

Active penance is a self-imposed penance.  Examples of these are almsgiving and additional fasting.  Practicing mortification of our eyes, our ears, our tongues, (in fact, all of our senses) is an excellent form of active penance.  The saints did many different kinds of penances, including wearing hair-shirts and chains, or flagellations called the “discipline”.  However, there are more ordinary penances that, often, we should embrace, e.g., taking cold showers, refraining from condiments on our food, etc.

By practicing active penances we can help curb our flesh, our self-love, and our fallen human nature, all of which are easily attracted to worldly pleasures.  We must fight against these enemies of our salvation by being constantly vigilant and mortifying ourselves because we are prone to selfishness.

Fr. Hurter has some practical advice on how to be cautious about our souls.  He says we must have a “newness” of heart, tongue, and action. [2]

The newness of our hearts is obtained by focusing on purity, avoiding, of course, mortal sin and also voluntary venial sin, and bridling our passions.  To obtain this newness of heart, the heart “must be new by its right direction to God, by purifying our intentions and motives.”  This newness of heart also entails that we have an increase in fervor, and in this way have a greater zeal in our service of God.  This includes a dedication to “repairing the losses caused by our past negligence.”[3]

When speaking about the newness of tongue, Fr. Hurter recommends that we put five bridles on our tongue, a fivefold silence, and by doing so avoid many faults.

1. The silence of charity. By the use of our tongue we so easily offend against the love of our neighbor.  We scarcely open our mouth without committing sins of the tongue.  We criticize people, make their faults known, or attribute ignoble motives to them; we often begin well by praising a brother: soon, however, the praise turns to blame.  Even pious souls easily forget themselves.  We wish to amuse ourselves, spread news, make ourselves important and interesting, and before we are fully aware of it, we have sinned.  Let us hold on to two golden rules which will be of great use to us.  First rule: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” (Matt. 19:19) What I do not wish another to say about me, that I ought not to say about him.  Second rule: What I would not say in his presence because it might offend, mortify, or humiliate him, that I ought not to say in his absence.” [4]

2. The silence of patience.”[5] In this type of silence Fr. Hurter explains how we are apt to complain about whatever suffering we experience.  In this complaining, we offend God, our superiors, and our neighbor.   We offend God because we show that we are not resigned to His will.  We offend our superiors because we readily blame them as being severe and unjust.  We offend our neighbor by blaming him for his lack of consideration of us.[6]

We offend by exaggeration, spiteful expressions, rash judgments, and frequently condemning the most innocent doings of others; urging our friends to make similar complaints, and thus cause dissension and discord.  In order to learn this silence of patience, let us often think of Our Divine Savior, Who was accused, calumniated, mocked, and ridiculed before the tribunals, but even in the most agonizing pain did not open His mouth to complain.[7]

3. The silence of humility.  This we practice when we keep silent about our real or supposed advantages, when we do not willingly speak about ourselves, and do not, except for grave reasons, talk about our good works, mindful of the words of Our Lord: “When thou dost an almsdeed, sound not a trumpet before thee, as hypocrites do in the synagogues….Amen I say to you, they have received their reward.” (Matt. 6:2)[8]

4. The silence of purity.” Here Fr. Hurter addresses how our speech must be free from all uncleanness.  In general, as members of society it is appropriate to have proper decorum and decency, but all the more so for those who intend to be true followers of Our Lord Jesus Christ.[9]

5. The silence of prudence.  If we wish to escape vexation, we must be prudent in our speech.  How often is not something said without consideration, then told to others; and then depression, misunderstanding, discord, and enmity spring up.  It often takes weeks and months before the tension is broken and friendly relations are again restored.  We should be careful when giving our opinion about others, and not be too trustful, for even “walls have ears,” as the significant proverb says.  What we believe has been said in private will soon be heralded from the housetops.  Therefore we should always speak so that we need not be afraid of publicity.  Be not hasty in speaking, but deliberate and careful, if you wish to live in peace.  Let us diligently observe this fivefold silence.  We shall never regret having been silent; but we are often sorry for having spoken carelessly.[10]

In his discussion of a newness of action, Fr. Hurter makes three main points:

1. Our actions should all proceed from faith; and as its fruit, they should be ennobled by the motives of faith.  Only what proceeds from faith is pleasing to God: “Without faith it is impossible to please God.”(Heb. 11:6)

2. We must strive to make our actions faultless and our works perfect: “In all thy works keep the preeminence.” (Eccl. 33:23)  We do not offer decayed fruit to an honored guest; much less should we offer as an homage to the Most High works that are defective.  Rather should we endeavor to deserve the praise which the good people gave to Our Lord: “He hath done all things well.” (Mark 7:27)

3. We must be generous towards God.  We must not be satisfied with doing that to which we are bound under pain of mortal, or at least venial sin.  We must do more than strict duty calls for out of pure love.  A heartfelt love among men often performs great deeds; surely then our love of God should not be niggardly and narrow-minded.  Self-interest ought to urge us to be generous towards God, for God will not be outdone in generosity; that would be unworthy of His infinite goodness.[11]

One consoling aspect to keep in our minds at the end of doing all the Spiritual Exercises and in setting about making resolutions to strengthen our desire to serve God well is that the Exercises and our resolutions should engender peace in our souls.

Fr. Hurter gives many considerations about St. Augustine’s explanation concerning true interior peace.  St. Augustine says that four things are required: (1) serenity of mind; (2) tranquility of soul; (3) simplicity of heart and (4) a bond of peace based on brotherly love. 

SERENITY OF MIND

A serene mind results from seeing by faith that God is our loving Father Who provides for us, and knowing that “for those who love God, all things work for the good.” (Rom.8:28)  Therefore, in whatever state of life we have, we can serve God and become perfect and holy.[12] 

The devil tries to get us to distort reality and imagine that we are in a storm, that is, in some calamity.  He would have us blow a situation way out of proportion so we will lose our confidence and peace.  Then, our imagination urges us on to be suspicious of the motives of others, and our emotions follow suit and bad consequences follow.[13]

At other times, he clouds our perspective by blinding us to our own failings or minimizing them, and instead exaggerating faults of others.  When we are like this we do not take corrections well and we see the one correcting us as harsh and severe.  Our soul becomes dark.[14]

Indeed, our imagination often leads us off course.  If we want to retain cheerfulness of spirit, we must not give our imagination too much play, but rather let the Holy Ghost waft over our interior.[15]

TRANQUILITY OF SOUL[16]

 There are three ways that our tranquility of soul may be disturbed.  Dwelling on the past, dwelling on the present, and being anxious about the future.

Many people fret about the past.  They are scrupulous about their past contrition.  They second guess everything.  We must remember that uneasiness without a good reason comes from the devil.  (See St. Ignatius’s notes concerning scruples below.) As long as we can say, “I honestly examined my conscience”, we can be at peace.  We must trust in the Good Lord because we know that He lovingly cares for us.

Present events can also be alarming to us.  Our predominant passions and unregulated inclinations readily cause a storm to rise in the soul.  Hence, self-control must be acquired by a vigilant examination of conscience.

We must also acquire indifference in regards to our inclinations.  If we are not mortified then there will be excitement and disturbances as soon as we meet with something which is opposed to our inclinations.  Furthermore, if we act in a stormy and hasty manner, we can scarcely maintain our interior peace.  We must remember, too, that there is a very close connection between the interior and exterior man.

Another source of undue alarm is when we meddle in other people’s business which does not concern us at all. We must be concerned with our present duty and not concerned about things that we cannot control.

We sometimes allow ourselves to be disturbed by too much anxiety about the future.  The first step in counteracting this is to be childlike in our confidence in the providence of God.

If we picture to ourselves future difficulties, we become sad and discouraged.  We soon find out that when the time comes, the difficulties have vanished.  The things we dread do not come to pass.  If there is a question of something that may concern us in the distant future, we should quiet ourselves with the thought: “God will provide!”

We must be on guard when the imagination pictures improbable events and thus disturbs us with useless anxiety.  If God permits something extraordinary to happen, He will also us give the necessary graces in due time.  For fictitious cases, He need not give grace.  No wonder that we do not know how we should act in such cases.  Let us be calm and satisfied in submitting to the Sacred Heart.[17]

SIMPLICITY OF HEART

This means that one is direct in his meaning and not a hypocrite.

Whoever has such a contradiction between the dictates of his conscience and his external conduct cannot enjoy true peace because true peace consists in perfect harmony.  Simplicity of heart therefore seeks only to please God, and has no other motives.  It is not guided by the principles of this world, or by the wisdom of the flesh, does not lend a willing ear to sensuality, but strives to bring all into unison with the enlightened principles of Our Divine Savior.  Also, He gives us a beautiful example by His mode of life, which is so pure, so noble, so enlightened, so simple, so captivating, and so capable of winning the hearts of men.[18]

THE BOND OF PEACE[19]

This mark of true peace is cordial agreement with one’s brethren and neighbors. Just as Our Lord said, “This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.”  Our Lord is compelling us to love with an unconditional love.  He does not want us to count the cost. 

The mutual love that He wanted His apostles to have towards each other He wanted to be an outward sign, a mark. “By this shall all men know that you are My disciples, if you have love one for another.”  (John 13:35)  Likewise, we should earnestly ask ourselves if we have this mark on us, and appreciate it highly.

We can show our love for Our Lord by showing love to our neighbor.  Our Lord tells us that what we do for the least of our brethren, He considers done unto Him. 

This love strengthens our prayers.  Indeed, Our Lord tells us that, “For where there are two or three gathered together in My Name, there I am in the midst of them.” (Matt 18:20) Therefore, we should appreciate prayers said in the company of others.

We should then endeavor to make every effort to acquire this heavenly peace simply because this peace is a foretaste of heaven.


St. Ignatius’ Notes concerning Scruples

The following notes will be of help in discerning and understanding scruples and the snares of our enemy:

1. The name “scruple” is ordinarily given to that which proceeds from our judgment and free will; for example, when I freely judge something to be a sin which is not a sin.  This might happen when someone, after having accidentally stepped on a cross formed by two straws, of his own accord judges that he has sinned.  This is in reality an erroneous judgment and not a real scruple.

2. After I have stepped upon that cross, or after I have thought, said, or done some other thing, the thought comes to me from without that I have sinned. On the other hand, it seems to me that I have not sinned.  Nevertheless, I am disturbed in this matter, doubting and not doubting that I have sinned.  This is truly a scruple and a temptation from the enemy.

3. The first scruple, mentioned in the first note should be much abhorred because it is completely erroneous.  But the second type of scruple mentioned in the second note, is for a certain period of time of no little advantage to the soul that devotes itself to spiritual exercises.  It may even greatly purify and cleanse such a soul, separating it far from all appearance of sin, according to that saying of St. Gregory: “It is a mark of good souls there to recognize a fault when there is none.”

4. The enemy observes very carefully whether one has a delicate or lax conscience.  If the conscience is delicate he strives to make it excessively so in order to disturb and ruin it more easily.  For example, if the enemy sees that a soul consents to no sin, since he cannot make the soul fall into what has the appearance of sin, he strives to make it judge that there is sin where there is none, as in some insignificant word or thought.

If the conscience is lax, the enemy strives to make it still more lax.  Thus, if before it took no account of venial sins, he will strive to have it take no account of mortal sins.  If before, it did take some account of them, now he will strive that it cares much less or not at all about them.

5.  The soul that desires to advance in the spiritual life must always take a course contrary to that of the enemy.  If the enemy seeks to make the conscience lax, he must strive to make it delicate “to excess”; the soul must strive to establish itself solidly in moderation so that it may better maintain its tranquility.

6.  When such a good soul wishes to say or do something that is acceptable to the Church and to the mind of our superiors, something that may be for the glory of God Our Lord, there may come to it from without, a thought or temptation not to say or do it because it is motivated by vainglory or some other specious reason.  On such occasions one must raise his mind to his Creator and Lord, and if he sees that the action is for God’s service, or at least not contrary to it, he ought to act in a manner diametrically opposed to the temptation, as St. Bernard answered a like temptation: “I did not begin this because of you, nor because of you will I desist.”

In our next lesson, we will give St. Ignatius’ additional meditation points on the life of Our Lord.



[1]           St. Augustine says, “Sin must not remain unpunished; it is not becoming, it is not good, it is not right.  Then, as sin must be punished, punish it yourself, that you may not be punished for it.”  As quoted in Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat, by Hugo Hurter, S.J., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918; third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, p. 92.

[2]           Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, S.J., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918; third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, p. 244.

 

[3]           Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, S.J., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918; third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, pp. 244-245.

 

[4]              Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, S.J., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918; third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, pp. 245-246.

 

[5]           Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, S.J., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918; third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, p. 246.

 

[6]              Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, S.J., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918; third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, p. 246.

 

[7]           Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, S.J., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918; third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, p. 246.

 

[8]           Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, S.J., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918; third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, p. 247.

 

[9]              Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, S.J., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918; third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, p. 247.

[10]         Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, S.J., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918; third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, pp. 247-248.

 

One note about never regretting silence is that one should keep in mind that when one finds himself confused or not sure about a crucial matter in order to be able to take reasonable action, one is obliged in prudence to seek advice of one’s superior or of a virtuous and wise person.  Remember also how St. Ignatius describes in his Rules for the Discernment of Spirits that when one is tempted, one should reveal his temptation to an appropriate person in order to thwart the evil one’s plan to harm the soul.

[11]         Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, S.J., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918; third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, pp. 248-249.

 

[12]         Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, S.J., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918; third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, p. 250.

 

[13]             Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, S.J., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918; third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, pp. 250-251.

[14]            Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, S.J., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918; third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, p. 251.

 

[15]         Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, S.J., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918; third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, p. 252.

 

[16]         The following section is paraphrased from Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, S.J., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918; third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, pp. 252-253.

[17]         Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, S.J., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918; third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, pp. 252-254.

[18]         Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, S.J., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918; third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, pp. 255-256.

 

[19]         This section is a paraphrase of Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, S.J., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918; third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, pp. 256-257.

The U.S. Economy compared to Leftist Spin about the Economy

Catholic Candle note: Below is an article concerning the U.S. economy in particular, and, by analogy, pertaining to the economies of other Western countries.

Catholic Candle usually writes on topics more directly related to the Catholic Faith, as well as Catholic philosophy and Catholic practice.  But there is an ongoing cultural and political revolution all around us, and this revolution has other aspects too.  That is why we also write on topics that could be called “political”, in order to shine a light on current evils in government and society.  Here are examples of such Catholic Candle articles:

  The COVID-19 “Vaccine’s” Harms Continue to Be Further Revealed: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/02/20/in-case-you-missed-it-february-2024/

  Glacier-Melting Alarmism: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/01/23/glacier-melting-alarmism/

  The Leftist Attack on the Moral Fiber of Society: https://catholiccandle.org/2023/10/29/the-leftist-attack-on-the-moral-fiber-of-society/

  The “Deadly Heat” Alarmism: https://catholiccandle.org/2023/08/24/the-deadly-heat-alarmism/

  The False Principle of “Diversity and Inclusion”: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/01/05/the-false-principle-of-diversity-and-inclusion/

  “Big Data” – a New Version of an Old Danger of Manipulation and Deception: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/12/11/h/

  Black Lives Matter is Showing its “True Colors” – and They are Red: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/10/03/black-lives-matter-is-showing-its-true-colors/

  The Evil & Dangers of Yoga: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/09/05/the-evil-dangers-of-yoga/

  Wikipedia – a Deceptive Tool of the Leftists:  https://catholiccandle.org/2021/08/02/wikipedia-a-deceptive-tool-of-the-leftists/

 

  The Current Leftists Follow the Usual “Tyrant’s Playbook”: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/05/03/the-current-leftists-follow-the-usual-tyrants-playbook/

 

  Empathy – a Tool for Good or for Evil: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/04/02/empathy-a-tool-for-good-or-for-evil/

 

  Reject the COVID Vaccines!  https://catholiccandle.org/2021/01/01/reject-the-covid-vaccines/

 

  Face masks present grave health risks & are to control people, not a virus: https://catholiccandle.org/2020/12/01/856/

Catholic Candle holds that the globalists are positioning the U.S. economy and other economies in the Western World to be pushed into collapse if and as needed, to compel people to accept a future globalist tyranny.

Thus, we have an eye on the economy in order to monitor (in a general way) its condition and its readiness for use as a weapon compelling acceptance of a globalist tyranny.

 

The Condition of the U.S. Economy and Comparing it to Leftist Spin about the Economy

The National Debt

We live in dramatic times!  For “starters”, let us note that the National Debt Clock (using government data) currently shows the federal debt to be about $34½ trillion!  Here is a screen shot of the “U.S. Debt Clock” from a few days ago:

That is such a huge number it is hard to grasp in “everyday” terms.  One of the Catholic Candle Team checked this same “debt clock” almost 15 years ago, on March 6, 2009.  On that day, the “debt clock” was $10.95 trillion.  So, for comparison purposes, in nearly 15 years, the U.S. National Debt has increased more than $23 trillion!

The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank has graphs showing the growth of the U.S. National Debt.  Here is the graph which we downloaded a few days ago:

This graph available here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEBTN

This graph shows the same thing as the debt clock, viz., on roughly March 6, 2009 the graph shows (roughly) the National Debt of $11 trillion.

Look how the National Debt has skyrocketed in the last 15 years especially!  The above graph starts at roughly 1965.  From that date, it took (roughly) 20 years to reach the first $1 trillion, and (roughly) ten more years to add another $5 trillion to that amount (with a total debt of $6 trillion at about 1995).  Then it took about 13 years to add another $5 trillion to that (to a total of about $11 trillion in 2009).  In the 15 years since 2009, the National Debt has increased more than $23 trillion!

Such increases in our country’s debts are unsustainable.  Drunken sailors spend their money more carefully than our government!  Where is this all leading?  Ask yourself that.


The Annual Federal Deficit

Here is a little more information to help us to extrapolate where this is heading. 

Every year, the U.S. government makes fiscal matters much worse by adding to the National Debt.  And the government is adding to the total debt at a faster rate.  The U.S.’s annual budget deficit (i.e., the amount by which federal spending exceeds federal revenue) is currently 16% higher than it was a year ago.[1] 

The federal deficit for the first third of the current fiscal year is $532 billion.[2]  Multiplying this number by three (in order to “annualize” this deficit) shows that we are running an annual deficit of about $1.6 trillion ($532B x 3 = $1.596 trillion).  This shows the U.S. is running a larger budget deficit compared to the average of the last 15 years.

The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank calculates the current annual federal budget deficit as larger than that – viz., approximately $1.7 trillion (viz., $1.695T).  See the upper left-hand corner of the graph below.

This graph is found here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD

Notice on the St Louis Fed’s graph that, although the average of the last 15 years is $1.5T, the larger deficits are more recent.  Although the largest federal budget deficits were during the COVID scare, nonetheless, after this so-called “pandemic”, the deficit spending level continues to be larger than the largest deficits before that.  Again, the federal government’s current annual budget deficit is roughly $1.6T or $1.7T  So the U.S. government is adding a huge amount to the enormous existing federal debt.  So, extrapolating to this time next year (2025) the National Debt will be $36.2 trillion (or more).  And so on.


U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Is there any good news about the economy as a whole?  Perhaps you have heard that the most recent numbers for GDP (Gross Domestic Product) were higher than expected.  The mainstream media treated this as a good thing.  For example, one leftist news source, CNN, called the current GDP number “shockingly robust”.[3]  Strong GDP growth would have been good under other circumstances but not under the present ones.  Let us explain. 

The GDP is an important measure of national economic activity.  It is supposed to measure increase or decrease of the nation’s wealth by measuring economic activity.  But the GDP does this imperfectly and is, literally, simply measuring spending.  When this spending reflects increases (or decreases) of economic activity related to homes constructed and factories built, cars made, crops grown, etc., then GDP is a reasonably good proxy to measure the increase (or decrease) in the nation’s wealth.

But at present, this higher GDP largely reflects more government spending.  The government makes almost nothing and so its expenditures, for the most part, do not reflect things built and produced.  Government expenditures commonly reflect lots of waste.  For example, the government wasted hundreds of billions of dollars doling out COVID relief money which was stolen by fraudsters.[4]  Even the non-fraudulent trillions of COVID freebies the government handed out were not productive but largely paying for people to stay home.

Yet, even when the government spending is wasted or spent unproductively, it is counted as part of the GDP as long as the government money is spent/paid.[5]  So if the government spent money hiring persons to dig holes and then fill them in again (an unproductive activity), this would be counted as an increase in GDP, since money was spent on this.

With lots of wasteful government spending, it not only increases the federal debt and deficit but it is also counted as an increase of GDP and so is counted as a sign of a supposed “healthy economy”.

Besides out-and-out government waste, the government also spends huge amounts of money on non-productive activities, e.g., hiring more bureaucrats, passing more laws, enacting more regulations, increasing social welfare spending, etc

Further, our corrupt government’s spending so often does great harm.  Our Corrupt Government is about the only thing concerning which it would be better if we do not receive our “money’s worth”.  So often, we would be better off if our corrupt government just burned money instead of spending it.

So, unlike when the private sector manufactures, mines, or otherwise produces goods, the increase in GDP because of a strong increase of government spending is a bad thing, not a good thing, especially when it is deficit spending (as it is).

Thus, we have the government wasting money and causing much harm by spending money that it does not even have, and which it borrows.

Common sense shows the evil of this situation.

This federal spending is not like a family increasing its spending (investing) in order to buy a house, a farm, or a car.  The increases in spending of the federal government are for its “living expenses”, e.g., current welfare payments, current healthcare welfare payments (Obamacare etc.), current freebies for everything from unnecessary grants to foreign aid. 

This is like a family continually spending beyond its means for current expenditures in its monthly bills, e.g., food and rent.  The government’s spending is like a business which is borrowing to meet its current payroll and to pay rent for its factory building.  Such a business, or family, or the government is living beyond its means and is heading toward ruin.  We see that the government is spending like that now.


Is There a “Biden Bull Market”?

Let us briefly examine what the mainstream media says is the current “bull market” during the Biden presidency.  A “bull market” is a stock market that is rising because of a healthy and strong economy.

The mainstream media call the current stock market a “bull” market attempting to paint the economy as strong.  But “regular people” experience something largely the opposite.  That is why, for example, a few days ago The New York Times, in its election coverage, proclaimed that, despite the robust economy the voters are not giving Biden the credit for this

In other words, according to the media, Biden’s economy is really good but the voters somehow don’t realize this “fact” and so aren’t grateful to him.  The mainstream media misuses the economic data to claim there is a “Biden bull market”. 

Regardless of what the media claims, inflation is causing prices to go ever higher and people know this fact when they go to the grocery store, the gas station, etc.  Consumer prices have risen 20% in the last four years, according to government-issued statistics.[6]  There is good reason to believe that the government inflation numbers are a lie and a deceptive minimizing.  The apparently-more-accurate estimates show that last year’s inflation rate was about 18% and that the rate was 24% over the last four years.[7]

In that same four-year period, the costs which producers pay is up 35%.[8]  This gap between consumer and producer inflation is a typical pattern because, when producers’ costs go up, the producers initially absorb some of the increase in order to avoid angering consumers and losing market share.  So, although the producer inflation rate is now higher than the consumer rate, producers can only absorb the cost differential for so long.  Inevitably, consumer inflation will “catch up” to producer inflation eventually.

In this same last four years, the nation’s money supply has increased a whopping 39%![9]  This extraordinary increase shows us where our economy is heading.  This large increase in the money supply must result in greater inflation in the future.  When everyone has more money without changing the amount of goods available for purchase, then this circumstance MUST cause inflation.  For example, if suddenly, everyone received $1,000,000 with no increase in goods available, then people would be willing to pay a lot more for any given item.  Prices would go up.  This is inflation.  One way the economists speak of this situation is that “there are more dollars chasing the same quantity of goods”.

With all of this inflation, let us ask ourselves how this impacts Biden’s supposed “bull” market, i.e., the recent increase in the stock market.  Of course, with each dollar being inflated and worth less, the price of stocks must increase just to stay even in terms of “real dollars”.  This is like the fact that if there is a doubling of the money supply with no additional goods produced, then we would expect that the stock market would compensate and, over time, roughly double the price of the stock shares for sale, just to keep the shares valued at the same price in terms of “real dollars”.

Further, the current supposed “bull” market is a reversal of the previous Biden “bear” market and makes up for the stock market “tanking” and being about 15% lower in about October 2022 compared to when Biden took office.  In other words, most of the increase during the Biden “bull” market is merely making up for the 15% decline earlier in Biden’s tenure.[10]  So after taking account of the current stock market rise which merely returns the market to the pre-Biden level, and then after adjusting the market for inflation, the stock market’s increase is anemic and is a smaller annual increase than the average annual increase over the last 30 years. 

In contrast to Biden’s supposed current “bull” market, during Trump’s presidency, the S & P 500 stock index increased 36% in real, inflation-adjusted terms.  Below is a graph comparing how the stock market performed during the Trump and Biden presidencies, after adjusting for inflation:

This graph is available here: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/feb/21/what-bull-market-two-thirds-of-stock-market-rise-u/

So, we see that, as the economists say, “there is no such thing as a free lunch”.  When the federal government prints trillions of dollars “out of thin air”, this results in “more dollars chasing the same number of goods”.  This resulted in inflation and these inflated dollars caused, in part, the Biden fake “bull” market.


Conclusion

The U.S. economy is on a path to ruin.

The leftist agenda is bad for the economic health of the country and this Biden “bull” market is just another leftist lie.

We live in a strange and daunting time, so we must place ourselves in God’s Hands, by acts of our wills and intellects. 

Also, we must pray for our country, help each other, and pray for each other!

If we use this present time the way God wants us to use it, then this is a time of great blessings and merit!



Women should Wear Dresses and Skirts, Not Pants – Part 2

Catholic Candle note: The article below is part 2 of an article the first part of which is found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/02/19/women-should-wear-dresses-and-skirts-not-pants/


This article is a companion article to our article about Mary-like Neckline Modesty, which can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2023/05/21/marylike-neckline-modesty/

Both of these articles apply to girls as well as women and assist them in fulfilling the role and great work for which God created women.  Read more about this role and great work here: https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/02/the-role-and-work-that-god-gave-to-woman/

Part 2

Recap of part 1

In part one of this article, we saw five reasons why men (as well as women) need to understand the Catholic standards of modesty for women (and men).

The article then lists four reasons why women should not wear pants:

1.    It is objectively a sin against the revealed Divine Law for a woman to wear pants;

2.    It is objectively a sin of lewdness[1] under the Natural Law for a woman to wear pants, even apart from the issue of pants being more revealing of a woman’s body;

3.    A woman who wears pants objectively commits a sin of feminist usurpation of man’s role and “nature” and denial of her own “nature” and role in God’s plan; and

4.    A woman wearing pants objectively sins because pants are immodest for her due to their revealing too much of her figure.

Then the article looks at the first of those reasons.  Below, is the remaining three reasons why women should wear dresses and skirts and not pants.


2.     It is a Sin against the Natural Law for
Women to Wear Pants.

A person could suppose that it might have been permissible for women to wear pants and other men’s clothes (or for men to wear women’s clothes) if God had not forbidden this in the revealed Law in Sacred Scripture.  But that supposition is false because such cross-dressing is forbidden by the Natural Law, too.[2]

This prohibition under the Natural Law is especially because wearing the clothes of the other sex causes lewdness.  Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church, teaches this truth:

It is in itself sinful for a woman to wear man’s clothes, or vice versa, especially since this can cause lewdness.[3]

Pants are men’s clothes and it is a sin for women to wear pants just as it is a sin for a man to wear a dress because dresses are a woman’s clothes.  This particular reason why it is sinful for women to wear the clothes of the opposite sex does not depend on how much such clothes reveal a woman’s body.  For example, even if she should wear a complete men’s suit with a dress shirt buttoned up to her neck,  nevertheless, it is inherently sinful to do so.

It would also be a sin of cross-dressing for a man to wear a dress even if it were a “very modest” dress, precisely because it is woman’s attire.  The same example (a man wearing a dress) is all-the-more cringe-worthy if the dress is pink calico with lots of lace and frills as well as accompanied by broaches, pearl necklaces, and 4-inch-high spike heels.  But those conditions and accessories are not necessary circumstances for the man to have committed the sin of cross-dressing (although such feminine accessories might increase the sin).

This is because, as St. Thomas explains, such cross-dressing is a cause of lewdness and sensuality.  This lewdness arises because it is lewd for a man to insert his body into women’s clothes (i.e., for him to commingle his body with women’s clothes).  Similarly, it is lewd for a woman to insert her body into a man’s clothes or commingle her body with man’s clothes.

Again, this reason we are discussing now (why it is a sin for men and women to cross-dress) does not pertain to whether a woman’s figure is more revealed in pants (which it is) but pertains to the fact that pants are men’s clothes.  In other words, it is a sin for a woman to wear men’s clothes regardless of whether such clothes would immodestly reveal her body.

This is the second reason it is a sin for women to wear pants.

 



[1]           Lewdness (noun): indecency or obscenity; vulgar sexual character or behavior.  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lewdness

[2]           The Natural Law is what we know is right (or wrong) by the light of the natural reason God gave us.  One example of the Natural Law is that we must never tell a lie.  We naturally know this because we know that the purpose of speech is to convey the truth and so we naturally know that telling a lie is abusing the purpose of speech. 

Here is how St. Thomas explains what the Natural Law is:

[L]aw, being a rule and measure, can be in a person in two ways: in one way, as in him that rules and measures; in another way, as in that which is ruled and measured, since a thing is ruled and measured, in so far as it partakes of the rule or measure.  Wherefore, since all things subject to Divine providence are ruled and measured by the eternal law, as was stated above [in Summa, Ia IIae, Q.91, a.1]; it is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends.  Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident both for itself and for others.  Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law.  Hence the Psalmist after saying (Psalm 4:6): "Offer up the sacrifice of justice," as though someone asked what the works of justice are, adds: "Many say, Who showeth us good things?" in answer to which question he says: "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us": thus implying that the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature’s participation of the eternal law.

Summa, Ia IIae, Q.91, a.2, respondeo.

[3]           Summa, IIa IIae, Q.169, a.2, ad 3.

 

Words to Live by – from Catholic Tradition

Trust in Divine Providence

The Voice of Christ:

My child, allow me to do what I will with you.  I know what is best for you.

The Disciple:

Lord, what You say is true.  Your care for me is greater than all the care I can take of myself.

Imitation of Christ, Thomas à Kempis; Book III, Ch. 17.

 

Women should Wear Dresses and Skirts, Not Pants

Catholic Candle note: The article below is a companion article to our article about Mary-like Neckline Modesty, which can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2023/05/21/marylike-neckline-modesty/

Both of these articles apply to girls as well as women and assist them in fulfilling the role and great work for which God created women.  Read more about this role and great work here: https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/02/the-role-and-work-that-god-gave-to-woman/

 

We live in a pagan world (as we see all around us).  Even many Catholic women adopt the evil fashions they see all around them.  Let us inquire whether women should ever wear pants.

But first, let us inquire whether this issue is one that only women need to know about.


Is it Important for Men (as well as Women) to Know the Catholic Standard of Modesty for Women?

Men and women should all care about feminine modesty and know the standards of Catholic modesty.  It is obvious that a woman should understand and live the Catholic standard of modesty so that she can please God, edify her neighbor, be a good example, teach her daughters, and avoid sin.

But there are five reasons why men should know these standards too:

1.    It is important for men and boys to know the standards of female modesty because they have a duty to avert their eyes from women’s and girl’s attire which does not comply with such modesty standards.
This is obvious.  The main reason why women and girls have standards of modesty (and must not “wear whatever they want to”) is because there are men and boys who will look at them. 
Women must cover up for the sake of the men.  This is common decency and is a minimum charity that they owe to their (male) neighbors.  Women would be callously disregarding the salvation of men (and themselves) if women dressed without concern for the temptations their attire would cause in men.
This is like the fact that a person must not wildly swing a butcher knife “whenever he wants to” without regard for the risk of injuring those around him.  In fact, immodesty is more dangerous than the butcher knife because immodesty can kill the soul whereas a butcher knife can only kill the body. 
Of course, it is also true that men must dress modestly for the sake of the women too.  This is men’s minimum charity toward their (female) neighbors.  However, there are three reasons that female immodesty is a greater problem:

  Women are the more beautiful sex and so are more attractive;

  Men are more prone than women are to sins of impurity by looking impurely at the opposite sex, as is evident by the fact that the filthy practice of viewing pornography is a sin which is far more frequently committed by men rather than by women; and

  Men and women both are more inclined to weaken on women’s standards of modesty than on men’s modesty.  This is because women have a stronger focus on pleasing men by their (i.e., women’s) appearance, and men have less of a focus on pleasing women by their own (i.e., the men’s) appearance but have a greater tendency to be pleased by women’s appearance (than are women focused on and pleased by men’s appearance).  Here are three signs that this is true:

first, women desire and usually have a far larger wardrobe and wear far more jewelry than men do;


second,
women take many other pains to look attractive for men, such as wearing makeup, getting their hair curled or permed, etc., and
third, men’s clothes and shoes are more practical and serviceable.  By contrast, women’s clothes and shoes are much more likely to be less comfortable because they are more designed to please men rather than for comfort.  (For example, women’s shoes are designed to make a woman’s foot look smaller.) 
 

2.    It is important for an unmarried man who is called to the married vocation (and not to the life of consecrated virginity) to have prominently featured in his “blue print” of the future spouse he seeks, that she possess and love this great treasure of the Catholic standard of holy modesty; 

3.    It is important for a man to know the Catholic standard of feminine modesty so that he can give moral support and defend the modesty of good women against scoffers, mockers, and other enemies of Our Lord.  (For example, it is all too often that women who take modesty seriously are made to feel prudish and isolated, especially by other women who have a more liberal dress code.)  Men should be gallant and gentlemanly.  They should defend women, especially good women who are living the standards of modesty and other virtues;

 

4.    It is important for a man to know the Catholic standard of feminine modesty because he will be responsible for guiding his wife and daughters (when God sends him his own family) and will be ultimately responsible for this standard being implemented in his own home and family; and

 

5.    It is important for a man to know the Catholic standard of feminine modesty so he can love this beautiful virtue and admire and appreciate the Mary-like women and girls who practice it.

 

Four Reasons Women Should Not Wear Pants

There are four reasons why it is a sin for women to wear pants:

1.    It is objectively a sin against the revealed Divine Law for a woman to wear pants;

2.    It is objectively a sin of lewdness[1] under the Natural Law for a woman to wear pants, even apart from the issue of pants being more revealing of a woman’s body;

3.    A woman who wears pants objectively commits a sin of feminist usurpation of man’s role and “nature” and denial of her own “nature” and role in God’s plan; and

4.    A woman wearing pants objectively sins because pants are immodest for her due to their revealing too much of her figure.

Below, we consider each of these reasons.


1.     It is Objectively a Sin against the
Revealed Divine Law for Women to Wear Pants.

God has revealed His law that it is evil for a woman to wear a man’s clothes (and also for men to wear women’s clothes).  Here are the words of God’s law:

Let not a woman wear men’s clothes nor a man use women’s clothes.  For they are abominable with the Lord who do such things.

 

Deuteronomy, 22:5.

One article of man’s clothing is pants.  Although at any time in history, one can find deviant persons wearing clothes which are taboo in order to get attention or to shock those around them, nonetheless, it only relatively-recently that the enemies of Christ succeeded to such an extent in their cultural revolution that society more generally was desensitized to women wearing pants so that it became no longer shocking to most people.  This occurred roughly in the revolutionary 1960s, when society also became desensitized to other evils such as to tattoos[2], to cremation[3], to rock and roll “music”, and to wives and mothers being career women[4].  These things are still sins despite most people accepting them.

One history of women wearing pants (published by Time Magazine), noted that the popular fashion magazine, Vogue, did not print a picture of a woman wearing pants until 1939 and that people were shocked by that picture.  Here is that entry in that history:

It wasn’t until 1939 that Vogue pictured its first woman wearing slacks in a spread, at a time when those garments still weren’t widely worn by women and had the power to shock.[5]

Citing a book on women’s clothes and their style during the 1900s, another history called it “radical” that society began to accept women wearing pants.  Here are the words of this history:

“One of the most radical developments for women was the gradual acceptance of trousers, which were no longer considered either eccentric or strictly utilitarian,” write historians Valerie Mendes and Amy de la Haye in their book, 20th Century Fashion.[6]

This history correctly calls this change “radical” because, as a third history remarks, “wearing trousers was considered shocking by many women at the beginning of the 20th century”.[7]

Lastly, a fourth history (of women wearing pants) points specifically to the cultural revolution of the 1960s as the turning point in which women in pants had become common enough that there was no longer much outrage at the practice.  Here is how that history phrases it:

By the time the counter-culture movement of the 1960s had reached its height, a woman in pants wasn’t much to be outraged by, even if in workplaces pants remained the preserve of men for a while longer.[8]

In a 1977 New York Times retrospective on feminism’s effect on women’s “fashion”, the newspaper explains that:

The early 1970s was the period [in which] … women seeking to express their individuality wore pants.[9]

This, of course, is because such women thought themselves to be showing “individuality” because women wearing this men’s garment was still uncommon then.

This 1977 New York Times article continued, pointing particularly to the influence of a fashion corrupter named Calvin Klein, who led this revolution in women’s “fashion”:

Calvin Klein was instantly successful with clothes that were influenced by menswear — pants, tailored coats and jackets. “Ten years ago [i.e., 1967] a woman wore pants as a way of showing daring and security in herself,” he says ….[10]

The reason why it was considered “daring” for a woman to wear pants in the 1960s and early 1970s, is because society considered her to be provocative by wearing men’s clothes.

So, we see that our culture was not degraded enough until roughly the 1960s or 1970s, and only then was society callous enough to no longer be shocked by women wearing these men’s garments.

It is true that a person could wonder whether women wearing pants was accepted in other parts of the world earlier.  It seems that in some places in the world, where a false and corrupt “religion” formed a different and corrupt “culture”, women wearing pants was accepted earlier because the “culture” was worse. 

However, in former Christendom (the Western World), which had been formed by the Catholic Faith, and by true Catholic culture, women wearing pants was not generally accepted earlier.  It was only when (former) Christendom had slid far enough into degradation that people were no longer shocked by women wearing pants.  Again, this was roughly in the 1960s – 1970s.  Only then had Our Lord’s enemies sufficiently prevailed in their cultural revolution.


(To be Continued)

 

 



[1]           Lewdness (noun): indecency or obscenity; vulgar sexual character or behavior.  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lewdness

[2]           Society began to view tattoos as neither shocking nor deviant at roughly the same time (the revolutionary 1960s) as society began considering women wearing pants as acceptable and not shocking.  Read this article here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/tattoos-are-a-sin-to-obtain-and-a-sin-to-display

[3]           Society began to view cremation as neither pagan nor barbaric at roughly the same time (the revolutionary 1960s) as society began considering women wearing pants as acceptable and not shocking.  Read this article here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/cremation-is-barbaric

[4]           Society began to view it as acceptable for wives and mothers to abandon their role in life at roughly the same time (the revolutionary 1960s) as society began considering women wearing pants as acceptable and not shocking.  Read this article here: The Role and Work that God Gave to Woman, https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/02/the-role-and-work-that-god-gave-to-woman/

 

[6]           History of Women Wearing Pants, found here: https://qz.com/quartzy/1597688/a-brief-history-of-women-in-pants

[8]           History of Women Wearing Pants: https://qz.com/quartzy/1597688/a-brief-history-of-women-in-pants

The Conciliar Church is Anti-God and Anti-Catholic

The conciliar church scrapped the perfect Faith and perfect Church, founded by Christ while He was on earth, and started a false, anti-Catholic church.  It kept the name “Catholic” to deceive the laity – and most clergy, for that matter.

Lest one should be tempted to believe the changes were minor, and therefore, unimportant, let us once again review some of these changes.  Besides considering the Mass a meal, rather than a Holy Sacrifice, the conciliar church has its own:

  false doctrines (e.g., the teachings of VC II);  

  false and sacrilegious worship (e.g., Novus Ordo mass);

  places for these sacrileges (viz., the conciliar churches stolen from the Catholic church);

  false priesthood (with its new concept of priesthood; doubtfully valid ordinations, etc.);

  false laws (e.g., within the 1983 Code of Canon Law);

  false catechisms (e.g., the new conciliar Catechism of the Catholic Church);

  false bibles (e.g., instead of the Latin Vulgate and its English translation, the Douay Rheims Bible);

  new, politically-correct “Decalogue” (i.e., a new “10 Commandments”);

  new, politically-correct “beatitudes”;

  new Mysteries of the Rosary (the so-called “luminous mysteries”);

  new (supposed) “saints” and new canonization process (e.g., so-called “Saint” John Paul II), the first pope whom the conciliar church (supposedly) “canonized” but certainly not the last;

  new (supposed) “sacraments” with conciliar names and formulae (e.g., Catholics have the Sacrament of Penance; conciliars have its substitute called “Reconciliation”, and on occasion it’s “group Reconciliation”); and

  new (supposed) “miracles” and “apparitions”.

In the aggregate, these changes accomplished what they were meant to accomplish; they deceived laity and clergy alike, who were confused into believing that the conciliar, counterfeit “church” is the Roman Catholic Church, founded by Christ.

The scope of this evil deed is beyond comprehension by most.  There were hundreds of millions of devout Catholics in the world before the Second Vatican Council, which was promoted by Popes John the XXIII and Paul VI.  The conciliar church was developed by the Council and completely took the Faith from the hearts of those Catholics who, sadly, had no idea they were “joining” a new church.  Because it still called itself Catholic, it raised few alarms.

But as we know, the conciliar church was Catholic in name only.  In reality, it is anti-Catholic.  So, now those hundreds of millions of Catholics are members of the anti-Catholic conciliar church and have little or no connection with genuine Catholicism.

It is obvious that the devil is behind this; he is a master of deception.  And this time his deception is far worse than his efforts in starting the Protestant sects in the 1500s.  He has not destroyed the Catholic Church, but he has taken the substance of the true Faith and Catholic practice out of the hearts of hundreds of millions of Catholics and made them instead into lax, non-practicing, or apostate (former) Catholics. 

The conciliar church is a wasteland and complete disaster.  To prove my point: can anyone name one good thing the conciliar church has done?  I didn’t think so.

Remember:  there’s no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

 

In case you missed it — February 2024

Catholic Candle update to the article below: After the publication of the thorough, major study discussed in the article below, the journal which published the study apparently faced tremendous political pressure and caved into that pressure without giving any serious scientific reasons (in our opinion) for retracting the peer-reviewed study that it had published.  (Indeed, we had originally marveled at the bravery of this journal because of the pressure that we anticipated the journal would receive.)

The study’s authors gave an excellent response to that political retraction, which you can read here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/dr-mccullough-slams-journal-for-retracting-major-study-calling-for-end-to-covid-jab-rollout/

In Catholic Candle’s opinion, that retraction for political reasons does not affect the scientific cogency of the study, or our recommendation of this study, or the force of the article below.  Instead, this retraction seems to simply be a further example of how the truth is censored when it opposes the leftists’ political agenda.

The COVID-19 “Vaccine’s” Harm
Continues to Be Further Disclosed

As Catholic Candle has shown in a January 2021 article, the first reason to avoid the COVID-19 mRNA gene therapy (which is falsely called a “vaccine”) is because it is a mortal sin of cooperating in the murders of innocent aborted babies who these pharmaceutical companies chose to use to develop the vaccine.[1]

As shown in this same article, the “new” liberal SSPX reversed it prior Traditional Catholic position and now follows the modernist Vatican in accepting the use of abortion-tainted injections including this evil Covid “vaccine”.[2]  As shown in this article, the SSPX previously condemned its current position.

In Catholic Candle’s January 2021 article, we warn of other harms which are also caused by this COVID-19 “vaccine”.[3] 

Since Catholic Candle published that article three years ago, there has been much additional evidence published about the harm caused by this COVID-19 “vaccine”.[4] 

Another study was just published on January 24, 2024.  Among its many important conclusions is:

applying these reasonable assumptions, the estimated harms of the COVID-19 mRNA injectables outweigh the rewards by nearly 14-fold.[5]

This entire study is filled with information showing the sloppiness, concealment of the truth, and other evils of the leftists pressing people to receive this evil gene therapy.  We recommend reading the entire study.  However, here we quote the conclusion section:

Conclusions

Careful, objective evaluation of COVID-19 mRNA product safety is crucial for upholding ethical standards and evidence-informed decision-making. Our narrative review concerning the registrational trials and the EUA’s [i.e., Emergency Use Authorization] aftermath offers evidence-informed insights into how these genetic vaccines were able to enter the market.  In the context of the two pivotal trials, safety was never assessed in a manner commensurate with previously established scientific standards either for vaccines or for GTPs [viz., gene therapy products], the more accurate classification of these products. Many key trial findings were either misreported or omitted entirely from published reports. The usual safety testing protocols and toxicology requirements were bypassed by the FDA and vaccine manufacturers, and the premature termination of both trials obviated any unbiased assessment of potential SAEs [i.e., serious adverse events ] due to an insufficient timeframe for proper trial evaluation.  It was only after the EUA that the serious biological consequences of rushing the trials became evident, with numerous cardiovascular, neurological, reproductive, hematological, malignant, and autoimmune SAEs identified and published in the peer-reviewed medical literature. Moreover, the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines produced via Process 1 and evaluated in the trials were not the same products eventually distributed worldwide; all of the COVID-19 mRNA products released to the public were produced via Process 2 and have been shown to have varying degrees of DNA contamination. The failure of regulatory authorities to heretofore disclose process-related impurities (e.g., SV40) has further increased concerns regarding safety and quality control oversight of mRNA vaccine manufacturing processes.

Since early 2021, excess deaths, cardiac events, strokes, and other SAEs have often been wrongly ascribed to COVID-19 rather than to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations.  Misattribution of SAEs to COVID-19 often may be due to the amplification of adverse effects when mRNA injections are followed by SARS-CoV-2 subvariant infection.  Injuries from the mRNA products overlap with both PACS [“post-acute COVID-19 syndrome”] and severe acute COVID-19 illness, often obscuring the vaccines’ etiologic contributions. Multiple booster injections appear to cause immune dysfunction, thereby paradoxically contributing to heightened susceptibility to COVID-19 infections with successive doses. For the vast majority of adults under the age of 50, the perceived benefits of the mRNA boosters are profoundly outweighed by their potential disabling and life-threatening harms. Potential harms to older adults appear to be excessive as well. Given the well-documented SAEs and unacceptable harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse and enforce a global moratorium on these modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.[6]

Catholic Candle readers know that the most important reason to refuse the COVID-19 “vaccine” is because it gravely harms souls, viz., it is a mortal sin because of its link to murder.  But we should thank God for also protecting us from this evil concoction because it is such a grave harm to bodies as well.

Truly, as St. Paul infallibly teaches us, all things work together unto the Good for those who love God!  Romans, 8:28.

 



[5]           Appendix 2, of this study; Mead M, Seneff S, Wolfinger R, et al. (January 24, 2024) COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign. Cureus 16(1): e52876. doi:10.7759/cureus.52876, found here: https://www.cureus.com/articles/203052-covid-19-mrna-vaccines-lessons-learned-from-the-registrational-trials-and-global-vaccination-campaign#!/ (emphasis added).

 

[6]           Conclusion section of this study: Mead M, Seneff S, Wolfinger R, et al. (January 24, 2024) COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign. Cureus 16(1): e52876. doi:10.7759/cureus.52876, found here: https://www.cureus.com/articles/203052-covid-19-mrna-vaccines-lessons-learned-from-the-registrational-trials-and-global-vaccination-campaign#!/ (emphasis added).