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
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,
to cremation,
to rock and roll “music”, and to wives and mothers being career women.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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 ….
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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”.
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;
and
Ø
Subject to her husband.
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.
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.
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.”
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,
cremation,
rock and roll “music”, and wives and mothers being career women),
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.
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 ….
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!
