Saturday, October 17, 2015

FOR (GERTIE) WOMEN ONLY [MOSTLY]

Hey, you true-believin', bishop-boostin' Gertie Gals...

... and all you viciously judgmental cult queen bees, wherever you may be!

Pistrina's got a quiz just for you.

Can you tell us what's wrong with this picture of Deacon Dan (taken during his recent luxury vacation to beautiful, springtime Argentina)?



No, it's not the hard truth that "One-Hand Dan" may not have the right to sport prelatical vesture.

No, it's not the fact that a sede "bishop" -- if he really believed in the vacancy of the Holy See --  would wear a purple-trimmed black choir cassock and black mantelletta.

And no, it's not that the cassock of the priest on the left looks to be about 6 to 8 inches too short.

Don't you see? Yes, that's right. It's the two well-poised, young women wearing the elegant veils, standing at Dubious Dan's right.

What's that, you say?

Nooooo! It's not that they're pretty and therefore couldn't possibly be real cultie chicks! 

C'mon, now!

Look carefully, ladies! You're experts at finding fault with your fellow Christians. Try harder.

Don't you see?

They're wearing PANTS -- 

-- a flagrant violation of the Gertrudian Dress Code and of all things held holy by the freaky gringo sede cult masters! And yet ... a fast-aging, over-fed Dannie looks as pleased as Punch with it all! (Or why else would he allow himself to be so photographed?)

Oh, we can hear you making the excuses now. "'When in Rome...,'" you'll snidely cluck in a hypocritical defense of Dirtbag Dan's rare tolerance of the real world. But, ladies, the trouble with that argument is that this "Rome" where trouser-clad women can be modest, devout, and properly attired in church is everywhere, including the United States of America.

So, then, what's O.K. for demure traditional Catholics in sunny South America should be O.K. for fanatical cultie babes in dismal SW Ohio, USA,  right?

Dannie's photographically documented attitude proves that the cult's prohibition of pants is irrational and outlandishly puritanical, symptomatic of a deeply seated psychological disorder. It's just another mechanism to control the already whipped tradettes: If you can tell 'em what to wear, you can tell 'em how much to give.

The sensible, sophisticated, and well-educated Argentines (and other Latin Americans) know that wearing pants nowadays doesn't turn women into raging feminists, nor does it show disrespect for the house of God. Whether we like it or not, pants are no longer exclusively men's outerwear according to the general custom, so there's no violation of  the Summa's teaching or of Deuteronomy 22.



That's a sick fiction of the nutty, malformed sede leadership. Moreover, the two young ladies are not alone in their choice of apparel.  Note in the photo to the right that both grannies and great-grannies are wearing pants as they pose with a brightly beaming Wee Dan. And, by the way, some of the girls in the other snapshots have open-toed shoes and sandals, while some of the men are wearing blue-jeans, logo-sweat shirts, and athletic shoes.(Click here, but do it fast, because after this they'll probably take down the pix.)


You "bishop -bewitched" Gertie gals need to ask yourselves a question: If His Tolerancy doesn't have a problem with women's pants and exposed female feet in Argentina, why doesn't he allow you gringo chicas the same privilege? Aren't you tired of freezing in the winter and boiling in the summer just to satisfy the cult masters' lubricious superstitions about what decent, contemporary women should wear? The business, governmental, and social worlds now universally accept women's dress trousers, and well-adjusted men of today are no longer inflamed with uncontrollable lust at the sight of a patch of skin.

You know in your heart that dress pants are perfectly appropriate in Church today, just as you know that peep-toe, nude-heel shoes or sandals won't carry you or normal guys to hell. You know you're not responsible for how degenerate, traddie pervo males react. (If you believe you're at fault, you'll have to lock yourselves indoors all day long or else get a burka.) You also know that women's pants per se are no threat to modesty: Some of those pioneer dresses of Tradistan are wrapped so tight they leave no room to imagination. And, let us add, what man out there isn't eternally grateful that Hillary Clinton prefers pant-suits to dresses?

Hunh? What's that you're hissing at us?

"Big Don wouldn't have tolerated the dress-code infractions! Those modernist Jezabels would've been driven out like the moneychangers in the temple."

We'll, you're probably right on that point, ladies. No doubt an overwrought rector would've sent the two nice, young women scurrying red-faced out of the hall, followed by the sweet, little first communicants and confirmands weeping bitterly from fear, on the heels of embarrassed matrons hobbling to safety as fast as their canes or blue-jeaned, sneaker-shod menfolk could propel them. But would that have been Christian? And what Catholic truth would such a violent outburst have defended? How many souls would've been won for Christ? How many souls lost to the Novus Ordo or the evangelical sects?

Ladies, can't you see this pants-prohibition nonsense for what it is? Another way to meddle in your lives. Obviously, Li'l Dan doesn't really give a hoot about his own rules. So that means you Gertie gals now have the opportunity to kick the cult-master creeps out of your clothes closets.

Here's all you have to do:

1. Print out a copy of the first photo above.

2. Put on a pair of old dress slacks (cult central's a filthy, rodent-infested dump).

3. March into the crumbling cult center on Sunday.

4. When a sleazy usher/bouncer tries to stop you from entering, show him the photo and shout,
"It's O.K. See for yourself: Bishop APPROVES!"
5. Go sit down on one of the dirty pews and wait for the (possibly simulated) Mass to begin.

You won, girl-friend! Double-standard Dan won't utter a peep.

And now you'll be warm through the fall and winter.


97 comments:

  1. Photographic proof of Dannie’s HYPOCRISY!! Downright delicious!! Dannie can always DENY what he said about the SGG school principal’s sons’ watching porn and animal torture videos (on the school computer): “Boys will be boys”; but he can’t deny the camera! (Or, perhaps, he CAN, by saying that Pistrina “re-touched” the photos!) Dannie, you’re going to have to come up with some fancy “back-pedaling” to get out of this one! Perhaps you can get Tony to write one of his famous tracts in your defense (like he did with your one-handed orders). This should be “a piece of cake” for him, since he doesn’t have to mistranslate any Latin this time around. But this one is pretty “air-tight,” Dannie. I’ll bet that you’re “sorry as blazes” that you went on this Argentine boondoggle, aren’t you?! Even Tony’s gift for depraved blarney won’t work this time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Dan the Denier could claim we doctored the pix, but then what could he say about the same photo on the Argentine priests' website?

      Did they Photoshop the picture just to embarrass Dannie back at home? Not likely, given that those two "pendejos" don't want to start bishop shopping again. They like the cash that Dannie brings.

      He'll probably just have to command the Misioneros to take them off the website and then say they don't exist. (But we've made copies, just in case.) We're waiting to see how long it takes for the photos to disappear from the site. We bet they'll be gone by Tuesday at the latest.

      Delete
  2. "that peep-toe, nude-heel shoes or sandals won't carry you or normal guys to hell"

    You're the one who made up this idea that those types of footwear are considered immodest at SGG. No one there ever said they were. They're just not considered appropriate for wearing in church.

    Someone explained this to you last time you made that up. Apparently it didn't sink in. But oh well, don't let the truth get in the way of your fun.

    https://media.giphy.com/media/11AhuUM0WCwsms/giphy.gif

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If such footwear is "not appropriate for church," then it must be deemed to be "immodest," because those styles cannot necessarily be considered casual or informal. They are often appropriate -- and commonly found -- in very formal situations.

      Besides, in making our judgments, we also rely on what some of the scum clergy affiliated with the cult say... and those morons are very explicit.

      In the face of these FACTS, defenses from cult-crazed simpletons are considered mere noise and therefore ignored.

      Delete
    2. "If such footwear is "not appropriate for church," then it must be deemed to be "immodest," because those styles cannot necessarily be considered casual or informal."

      This does not follow at all. Again, as people have explained to you before, clothing is banned from church for other reasons besides being too revealing — shirts with logos, sweat pants, etc.

      The fact that open-toed shoes are worn in formal secular venues is irrelevant. What is worn in formal events in the world is not always appropriate for church.

      It's pointless to argue about it. You made the assertion that open-toed shoes were banned because they were considered immodest, and you weren't able to back up that assertion. It's not up to me to prove my point — it's up to you to prove yours.

      Delete
    3. Absolute nonsense. Logo shirts, tee shirts are indeed still informal or casual according to general custom. Not so with women's shoes. (BTW, old photographs from Europe show otherwise.)

      Delete
    4. 1) Not every type of formal wear is appropriate for church.

      2) Show some proof that open-toed shoes on women are considered immodest at SGG.

      Delete
    5. 1) is true enough, but then it depends on your definition of "formal." A tuxedo and patent-leather shoes would be out of place in church outside a special occasion (say, a formal wedding), but we doubt that if someone were gauche enough to assist so attired he would be denied admittance. He'd be laughed at, but probably left in peace. We also doubt that such an outfit would be singled out as "forbidden" to the faithful.

      But nowadays the word formal has a looser meaning, which embraces what is better termed "semi-formal." Semi-formal wear is almost always appropriate for attendance at a real church (depending on the season). BTW, excessive, obsessive regulation of attire is one of the surest signs of a cult.

      As for 2), see Anon. Oct 17 9:08 PM and our subjoined reply.

      Delete
  3. In this photo we see the Pope Bergoglio with the deacon Dolan

    http://legioncatolica.blogspot.com.ar/2015/10/jorge-mario-bergoglio-sin-filtro.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. Indeed, it is! Actually, it's the best portrait we've ever seen of him.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I can imagine that Mary Magdalen didn't dress quite like the Blessed Virgin. They no doubt dressed somewhat similar because of society of that time, but I'm sure that Mary Magdalen was a little more outgoing shall we say. Then Christ spoke to her at the well. He never mentioned her outward appearance. Her heart was forever changed and I'm sure her dress & demeanor as well.
    If a person's heart or soul is with Christ it shows. I'm quite sure that some of the culties that are dressed all according 'to code' have hearts & souls not really with Him. Yes, I do firmly believe in dressing nicely for the King of kings, but some people aren't quite there yet. He sees our soul - we only see the body. Judge not, He told us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We're sure -- 100% -- that you're right.

      Delete
  6. P.S. I do believe that for many Trads it's the outward show that seems to count. If they appear good & righteous, then people will think that they're good & righteous. Look at poor Dan. It's the grand accoutrements he craves. But it's not to give glory to God, but to Dan. Back in the day, people wanted the Pope to have the finest - not because of him but because of Him, whom he represented. It was the people of Faith who gave so generously to the church because Christ deserves the very best. They weren't glorifying the man - they did it to glorify God.





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said. Our Lord deserves so much better than the likes of the ignorant, grasping, vain, self-aggrandizing, manipulative sede cult clerical adventurers. We must remember that back in the day, the majority of these scum would never have been able to enter the seminary, let alone be ordained. The best testimony to the crisis in the Church is not so much the vapid Novus Ordo clergy but the ridiculous low-life that American Trads have accepted in their place.

      Delete
  7. http://capillavedia.blogspot.com.ar/2015/07/santo-bautismo-el-pasado-sabado-11-de.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thank you for the link.

    This is a genuine, traditional Catholic community. The Argentines have the true holy faith -- and common sense. What a feeling of joy you is in those photos! How different from from the sad faces of the oppressed American traddies..

    The Society of King Louis of France is a great spiritual gift to the traditional Catholic world. Our hope is that they extend their apostolate throughout South America and the USA. May God give them a great increase in vocations. Catholics everywhere deserve such fine and humane priests. When Americans come to know these superb men, they'll quickly reject the nutty SGG-Brooksville cult.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes,thank you for this link.We also pray they extend their apostolate not only throughout South America and the USA but world-wide.We have been told by these superb priest's to not only reject the Nutty SGG-Brooksville Cult but also Mater Dei/Mt St Michaels cesspool at Omaha.

      Delete
    2. We have spoken to some of these fine priests of the King Louis Society, and as you say, they are superb shepherds. They care about their flock. If you ever get a chance to visit one of their chapels, you'll notice how different the atmosphere is from that of the nutty cults. When you go to a cult center, you can't help noticing how grim, cold, and louche the laity are, like snakes coiled to strike. In a King Louis chapel, as you see just from the link, the people smile, are at ease, and practice their faith devoutly. They also welcome newcomers with grace, unlike the cult hellholes.

      To be sure, the cult masters don't like the competition, so they do whatever they can to entice the faithful to leave. Fortunately, the very few with whom the cult kings have succeeded are only the weak minded and the terminally gullible.

      Delete
    3. Do they have Orders that are certainly valid?

      I'm one of those people who are concerned about silly details like that, rather than the really essential matters like whether your women's toes can stick out the front of their shoes or not. I tend to get caught up on details like whether what I'm worshiping is a piece of bread or the Almighty God.

      Delete
    4. Their orders come from Thuc-line bishops.

      Delete
  9. Let's be blunt: these men are misogynist men who like the power they hold over women and children. This isn't about dress codes, immodesty, or whatever else they have claimed it to be. This is about power and control. They want control of your money, over how you live, and what you wear. These are not men who are leading you closer to God (unless they think you can add to their bank account.). Speaking of bank accounts, what happened to the money they made from the sale of the Columbus parish and the bank account Cekada took? Did Sanborn make any money from the sale of land and the school in Michigan? Where is that money?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We couldn't have said it better. Thanks.

      We think all that money from Columbus has dried up by now, unless much of it was directed to retirement accounts. The SW Ohio cult didn't make as much money on the sale of the Columbus chapel as they had intended. It sold for someone near its original purchase price, we think. We're pretty sure the mortgage was NOT paid off, and there must have been realtor's fees.

      From what we heard from people in Michagan, Big Don didn't make as much money on the sale of the land and seminary/school as he would have liked. (We seem to remember a figure in the area of $300K, but we're not sure. Maybe someone else has better information.) Apparently the money was used to defray the construction costs in Florida -- perhaps it was used to pay for the many reported re-dos caused by the idiots in charge of building the new facility.

      Delete
  10. Whaddya know, worldly fashions turned out to be A-OK after all! After 21 centuries of teaching the opposite, the world is good now! Yay! No more penance or covering up for me!

    Isn't it so awesome the Church FINALLY "got up with the times" and gave it "el visto bueno" to worldly fashions and made an about face on women HAVING to cover up and be modest? Hey that's what Jhonny 23rd said! Aggiornamento!

    I guess all those gloomy warnings in 1920 about offensive fashions being introduced and woes about women wanting in modesty from the Virgin of Fatima were just the children's imaginations at work. Whew!

    Notwithstanding the FACT that pants for women were introduced and popularized by godless women like Katharine Hepburn and later on with the SEXUAL REVOLUTION, these so-called "traditionalists" here have given them their blessing and declared them modest and perfectly appropriate.

    I will let Pope Pius XII silence one of the favorite arguments these modernists here use to justify immodesty with a quote from his address to the Latin Union of High Fashion:

    " The sound consistency of your principles will be put to the test by the so-called modern spirit, which cannot bear hindrance. And it will be tried by the same indifference of many toward the moral consideration of styles. The most insidious of sophisms are usually repeated to justify immodesty and seem to be the same everywhere. One of these resurrects the ancient saying ab assuetis non fit passio ("The passions are not aroused by things we are accustomed to") in order to brand as old-fashioned the rebellion of honest people against fashions which are too bold. Must it perhaps be shown how out of place the ancient saying is in such questions?

    When We spoke of the absolute limits to be defended in the relativism of style, We mentioned the unfounded character of another fallacious opinion according to which modesty is no longer appropriate in the contemporary era which has now become free of all useless and ruinous scruples."

    Anyone reading this, read that address and ask yourself if what the people here say is in accord with that address.

    I have more but that will do for now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh Pope Nicholas I! Yes I'm sure all women wore pants In those times! And I'm sure they wore pants only, like today, with no skirt or dress on top of it at all!

      This is the best you can come up with? Ridiculous.

      Delete
    2. There's nothing immodest or bold about the clothing of devout women and girls in these photos, and the pants they wear have nothing to do with the wild creations of fashion designers and haute couture against whom the pope spoke.

      The times can change, and people can change attitudes without a loss of decency. And the misuse of the maxim "ab assuetis non fit passio" by bad actors does not by any means render it less truthful.

      Regarding the issue of pants, we offer the words of Pope Nicholas I written to King Boris of Bulgaria in 866: "Whether you or your women wear or do not wear trousers neither impedes your salvation nor leads to any increase of your virtue."

      Delete

    3. The pope referred to the Bulgarians, not all women. Pay attention.

      Delete
    4. So what? And what kind of trousers are we talking about here, exactly? Were they skin tight? Thin like jeans and slacks? Did they wore no skirt or dress on top of them? We're the tops also short so you could definitely see they were wearing only pants?

      I'm sure you can answer none of these questions, so what you say proves nothing.

      Did you know that one of the reasons the 1933 movie Queen Chirstina was condemned by the Legion of Decency, was because Garbo wore pants in it?

      Nuff said.

      Delete
    5. Do your questions imply that the Gertrudian dress code would tolerate pants on women if they weren't skin tight and thin? Or is the ban absolute?

      A lot has changed since 1933, whether you like it or not. Pants no longer are exclusively male attire.

      But as we say below, there's no need to discuss the issue any further: DAN DOLAN has given his stamp of approval for pants on women by his appearance in the photos. He looks as happy as a (stuffed) clam with it all.

      'Nuff said.

      Delete
    6. Your assumptions are wrong, as I don't support the trio nor do I live in the States even, so I have nothing to do with the SGG cult.

      So you can forget about pants being acceptable because Dolan seems to approve of them now.

      I would call him a hypocrite, but I don't know if he just couldn't do anything about it. He wasn't home, after all. This is not to defend him, but just to be fair.

      Just because you assert pants are no longer male attire, doesn't make it so.

      What has happened of course is that the Church has been hijacked since the death of Pope Pius XII by modernists who don't give a hoot about modesty or about Catholic doctrine for that matter.

      When the REAL authorities in the Church were still present, pants were condemned, but when the imposters got in, they were allowed, along with all manner of filth, heresy and immorality, so, their "acceptance" and "approval" has come from imposters and an ever-decaying world, but somehow you think this means it has the force of legitimate custom.

      CUSTOM, may I remind you, cannot go against the laws or teaching of the Church, so just because the Novus Ordo has adopted this worldly custom, doesn't mean the REAL Church has adopted it.

      I thought you were traditionalists?

      Delete
    7. Not all pants are immodest. As one commenter pointed out below, they can be of great assistance in preserving modesty.

      We are traditionalists, and what we uphold is the Church's teaching about modesty. Pants per se are no a threat to modesty, since skirts and dresses (even long ones) can be just as immodest as form-fitting skinny jeans.

      Delete
    8. "skirts and dresses (even long ones) can be just as immodest as form-fitting skinny jeans."

      Is this a serious statement or a joke?

      By the way, Oct 19 6:23 PM et al, you're a breath of fresh air. Why don't you stick around here for a while? It's nice to have someone else offering an opposing point of view instead of the usual bootlickers of this writer. And he says SGG is a cult ...

      Delete
    9. Bootlickers? ....Or just people who have their heads screwed on straight?

      Delete
  11. Thank you, Father Cekada, for your view on pants above on October 19th at 7:17am.

    Maybe you can look at what Pope Pius XIi said on life too," The direct destruction of so-called "useless lives," already born or still in the womb, practiced extensively a few years ago, can in no wise be justified." Was Terri Schiavo not innocent?

    Did St. Joan of Arc wear pants? In our time, where men are going under women's skirts with hidden cameras, is it more modest to protect yourself? Wearing a skirt in some situations makes one stand out as a potential easy target.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A fine riposte to a ne'er do well.

      Oct. 19. 7:17 AM can save himself the time of commenting any more on this topic. The fact is, Dannie Dolan has repealed most of the Gertrudian dress code by appearing in the photos on the web for all to see.

      Pictures are worth more than thousands of words. As anyone can see, Deacon Dan is perfectly happy with women in pants, logo-sweatshirts, no-ties, athletic shoes, and denim in Church. It's clear he found no immodesty or irreverence. Indeed, he looks positively blissful, posed with all those nice folks whose good, Catholic common sense converted him in a week.

      So, we suggest that Oct. 19 7:17 AM pull his act together and get on board with his "bishop." It shouldn't be hard. Culties are always modifying their positions when necessary. Just as Thuc is no longer mentally incompetent, so too are pants no longer prohibited to women in church. And the guys get a break, too: no ties and comfortable shoes!

      Everybody say, "Thank you, Wee Dan!"

      Maybe the Gerties will forgive "One-Hand" for all the unnecessary expenses incurred by vacationing in Argentina in light of the fact that the trip resulted in the de facto abrogation of the burdensome and nutty dress code.

      Oh, yeah, maybe it'll still be posted on the SGG website, but Dan, by his courageous example, has shown his contempt for it. Feel free to ignore it from now on.

      Now, Gerties, maybe you can smile when visitors stop by.

      Delete
    2. I'm not Checkie, so I have no problem with what you quoted.

      Did she wear pants? That's up to you to prove.

      Whatever male attire she did wear, did NOT become the trend for ALL WOMEN at the time, unlike what happened with pants, so bringing her up is pointless.

      Delete
    3. Terri Schiavo died of natural causes. No one killed her. I suggest you look up the article about her on Wikipedia for some accurate information on the case.

      By the way, 10/19 1:49 PM, if you're concerned about the identity of the people writing comments you don't like, I suggest you take a few seconds to wonder who the author of this blog is and what his credentials are as well.

      Delete
    4. When you appeal to Joan of Arc you desperate as she had to dress like a man to protect herself from being killed. Tell how Saint Joan would have preferred to dress.

      Delete
  12. My point is that if you want to quote a pope, follow all his teachings, not just picking and choosing.

    I think the followers of these men are sick. Catholic teaching is to hold women up with honor, not look at them as servants and below men. To make rules for some and to not apply to others; to care more about outward appearance instead of caring for someone's souls; to strip parishioners of money, that most can't afford to give, in order to eat at expensive restaurants, take expensive "retreats", have nice cars, and the top of the line everything; and everything else these men do are what makes people lose their faith.

    Men can start taking responsibility for your eyes. We are Catholics, not Muslims. Pants are not bikinis. Get over it!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Why do you say I'm picking and choosing? Did you not see that I said that I'm not Cekada nor do I even live in the States or support these dirtbags and that I have no problem with what you quoted from Pius XII?

    I don't defend these men one bit. I'm only talking about modesty.

    Bikinis? Well according to the modernist reasoning from the ones who run this site, not even bikinis are necessarily off limits! Times change they say!

    "We're Catholics, not Muslims". Well apparently the Church forgot to check with this liberal saying for Her entire history.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hey The Reader, do you deny the fact that it was due mainly to the hippy and sexual revolution of the 60's that women started wearing pants en masse? Did pious and God fearing women introduced pants and started wearing them to start the trend?

    Even so, not even in the 70's did they dare go to Church in pants!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To all the Anonymous commenters ragging on about the “inappropriateness” of pant suits: the point of the article was NOT about whether pants on women are appropriate, but that Dannie the hypocrite approves of them in Argentina (and a lot of other places), when he’s BANNING them at the SGG cult center. It’s not about “appropriateness”; it’s about DOUBLE STANDARDS.

      Actually, there is NOTHING inappropriate or indecent about women wearing pants – in church or anywhere else (nor have “the REAL authorities in the Church” ever condemned them). Anyone who has nothing better to do than to condemn pant suits (or open-toed shoes, for that matter) is a moron, a hypocrite, or a puritanical pervert -- or “all of the above.”

      Dannie’s dress code at SGG is not about “modesty” but about CONTROL. If he were really concerned about modesty, he wouldn’t refer to watching porno flicks as “boys will be boys.” And, AGAIN, the article’s point was about Dannie’s HYPOCRISY and DOUBLE STANDARDS -- and it certainly proved that point. So, no matter how much Dannie’s apologists try to divert attention away from that with their tangential discussions, the indisputable photographic proof is there: Dannie’s a HYPOCRITE. (But we knew that all along!)

      Delete
    2. Thanks, Watcher, for trying to focus the wandering minds of these attention-challenged culties.

      But we'd like to reply to Anon. Oct. 19, 7:01 PM: Yes, we EMPHATICALLY deny that women started wearing pants owing to the '60's sexual revolution.

      In our memory, women -- good, God-fearing, decent, middle-class Catholic housewives -- were wearing pants in the early '50's in the form of "pedal-pushers." They were great for cleaning around the house, gardening, reception, and taking the kids out for play. Anon, you need to get out from the influence of the nutball cult masters and their cultural fictionsand face facts.

      Delete
    3. "we EMPHATICALLY deny that women started wearing pants owing to the '60's sexual revolution."

      https://media.giphy.com/media/BieaBMRUBNUgU/giphy.gif

      Delete
    4. Reader, I have made it clear several times now that I don't support the trio or belong to SGG or even love in the States. So why do you continue to call me a cultie?

      Do you actually READ reader? Lol!

      As for the pants, well I read different, and it wasn't anything written by the trio. In fact, as far as I'm aware, they haven't written anything having to do with modesty in dress, apart from the dress code.

      I read several sources and they all confirmed they were popularized with the hippie revolution. Contemporary fashion designers also credit Katharine Hepburn of almost single-handedly starting the trend in the first place.

      Where do you think these women in the 50's picked it up from?

      Delete
    5. Watcher,

      Of course I know that the post wasn't about pants per se, but about Dannie, but since the author(s) decided to proclaim them to be totally acceptable, I decided to object to that.

      Real authorities have never condemned them you say? Did you not read that I said that one of the reasons the 1933 film Queen Christine was condemned was because Garbo wore pants?

      And where do you leave Padre Pio, the last great Saint? He refused to give absolution to a woman who had a pants store back in her far away country until she would SHUT IT DOWN.

      Delete
    6. Regardless of who started the trend, pants are here to stay in the 21st century, and wearing them has lost all the stigma that it once had. We think that if Padre Pio were alive today he would have shrived the woman without a second thought and would have let her pursue her livelihood. (And, as an aside, if he wouldn't he would be wrong, for saints make judgment errors, too.)

      Delete
    7. People who do not want to grasp your point will not grasp it no matter how true. I believe you are wasting your time here anon. Though maybe you are helping some that are reading that are on the fence.

      Delete
    8. You've got it right: our audience is not our adversaries.

      Delete
    9. Cardinal Siri was a "real authority" and he did condemn them.

      Delete
    10. He condemned them as a private individual in a specific historical context.

      Delete
  15. Also, are the people here saying that skin tight pants of any sort, which provocatively and prominently expose the derrière and legs are perfectly acceptable? FYI, this was one of the goals of the pants designers in the 60's, to prominently show the female body.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Who is that guy on the right in the black? He looks like he is waiting for someone to put their foot in his hand so he can give them a boost.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Did Discalced Carmelites wear sandals in Church?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As we've said before, the culties will have to get rid of all the statues of female saints wearing sandals: All those bare toes and heels must be too much for the depraved trad lads to endure.

      But now it seems some of the sedes won't have to confront that expensive reality. As Dannie Dolan demonstrates in the photos, sandals and exposed feet or foot parts -- like jeans, sneakers, and logo sweatshirts -- are now APPROVED.

      It's hogwash to say he didn't know or couldn't have done anything about it. He'd been down there before, so he knew what to expect. If he had wanted, he could have told the local clergy to advise the people to adopt the Gertrudian dress code, at least in his presence. They would have humored the ridiculous gringo. Moreover, he also could have refused to pose in the photos.

      No, it couldn't have been circumstantial. We think Dan intended to send a clear message to TradWorld that pants, jeans, sandals, exposed feet, athletic shoes, logo apparel, and no ties are perfectly OK for all trads.

      We're big enough to applaud him for his conversion to common sense. His courageous volte face will no doubt help the cultlings in Brooksville pressure Big Don into repealing his morbidly detailed dress code for women.

      Delete
    2. I made my comment to insinuate that it was okay to wear sandals in Church (if you are a Discalced Carmelite)



      Delete
    3. Anonymous October 20, 2015 at 6:16 AM
      Terri Schiavo died of natural causes. No one killed her. I suggest you look up the article about her on Wikipedia for some accurate information on the case.

      The above statement by Anonymous is absolutely incorrect, and I don't give a darn what contrived or controlled source of media this world uses as its Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. Terri Schiavo was MURDERED. Like you or me, without WATER we die, so did she. I WAS THERE! Not Wikipedia!
      If you want the Truth, "Ask and you shall receive" She was alive and alert and able to RECEIVE THE SPECIES of Our Lord Jesus Christ, until the money was running out, and her bigamist husband was able to gain the right to pull the plug through that Anti-Christ law of Roe v Wade. That same heinous law that is being imposed upon innocent babes as they slumber in the womb, will soon be imposed upon all of us as we enter into the the age of the useless and dependent. See if Wikipedia reports that!

      I as a Catholic know one thing for sure and that is when Christ comes back will He find what He will be looking for? The Faith. I can answer that one real easy. NO HE WILL NOT! May God have mercy on us all, including those with or without pants.

      Delete
  18. What kinds of pants are we talking about then? If you say skin tight are out of the question, then you must be referring to loose pants. If women wear loose jeans, they end up looking like men, and as a matter of fact, any sort of loose pants they wear will make them look masculine.

    How can you people say this is better than the feminine skirt or dress? Are you out of your minds? And how can you say wearing skirts or dresses is "morbid"?

    I thought you louts liked style and good taste, but there's none of that when women wear pants.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Big Don Sanborn's dress-code specifies that women must wear loose fitting garments.

      Delete
  19. Also, you don't think there's anything wrong with women wearing shorts either, so why do you object to skin tight pants? Or are you just pretending?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You would object to immodesty? And what does that mean to you?

      I know there is modest swimwear, and i wonder which ones you deem acceptable.

      BTW, i have never had anything against open toed shoes, sandals, showing feet etc. People even used to go around barefoot before, so why would showing feet be bad? Does the Trio say they are immodest or something?

      >>Big Don Sanborn's dress-code specifies that women must wear loose fitting garments.<<

      Yeah. So what?

      Delete
    2. Also, dont you think this isnt the first time that Dannie has posed with women wearing pants? Couldnt there be older pictures out there? I bet this is nothing new to him.

      Delete
    3. Anon Oct. 21 3:57 AM:

      We take our guidelines for modesty from Catholic moral theology -- viz., it is "the virtue that regulates all external and internal appetites and actions which do not offer particular difficulty. In a stricter sense, *modesty* ... refers to actions and customs (modestia morum et cultus), which it governs according to right reason. Thus one is induced by this virtue to a reasonable control of his actions and external customs in clothes, ornaments etc., according to his status, with a moderation between neglect and exaggeration...Modesty is the external protection and effect of the virtue of chastity and purity...[and it ] allows of variations in customs, according to particular times, places, and individual temperaments. Excess for one may not be so for another; immodest garb in one place may not be considered so in another...its application and customs depend, not on the criterion of individual preference and judgment, but on objective social considerations and effect on social morality." (Roberti's "Dictionary of Moral Theology")

      Anon. Oct. 21, 4:00 AM

      We agree. That's why all those Gertrudian rules are a laugh. The Ohio cult masters just use these arbitrary rules to control the people. Now it's an entirely different matter with the Brooksville ultra-rigorists: those characters are really disturbed!

      Delete
    4. So how to dress depends on objective social considerations and effect on social morality.

      Well as I said, nowadays anything goes in society: skin tight clothes, showing cleavage, bikinis etc.

      So I guess anything goes, since there are no absolute standards and you can't even judge for yourself, according to that theology book, but instead must blindly follow society?

      Nowadays, it's become very acceptable and popular in society for men to show off their muscles with tight shirts, and I could dress like this if I wanted to, but I don't because I don't believe it's good to show off my muscles like that.

      Delete
    5. The "anything goes" meme is not what Catholic moral theology contemplates by "objective social considerations." In spite of their numbers, the celebrity-crazy, unthinking, self-obsessed masses of today's America do not constitute the members of a community who produce a common good. Only that collection of individuals, unified under authority, who strive for "a perfect common end with full rights in its own order" compose a Catholic society. Of course, the big problem for Catholics now is the absence of authority, which cannot be had until the Restoration. The sick inventions of the cult masters are not a substitute for authority. The culties actually pursue, like the unchurched masses, an imperfect end.

      Delete
  20. What isn't immodest to these men? They are extreme, and usually hypocrites to their own dress code when it comes to the big donors. It is about money. It is about power. It is about control.

    I really don't think this article is necessarily about pants. It isn't about what you wear. It is about exceptions made to their rules for special families and special donors. We have all heard about the Lotarski family's special treatment in Cincinnati. We have all heard about the families who formerly controlled the Michigan chapel. The hypocrisy has always been there, but the internet is making more people aware.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How right you are. For these men, it's never been about virtue. It's always self-interest first and last.

      What's worse is that people allow themselves to be manipulated by men of so little ability and training, fakers who don't even attempt to conceal double standards and gross favoritism.

      Delete
  21. Good Grief! I thought that the purpose of this article was to point out the hypocrisy & double standards of Dan. Instead it's descended into a round & round debate on clothing. I remember reading some place in the Good Book that Christ was mistaken for a gardener once, which meant to me that He dressed no differently than other laborers. Granted, He wasn't in the synagogue, but He wore the same clothing as everyone else. He also said, "This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me." If your heart is with Christ then you will wear things that are becoming of a follower of Christ. Being FORCED to do so doesn't count. We must WILLINGLY dress decently. We get to Heaven with our own FREE WILL.
    (gets off soapbox)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One comment (by Anonymous, Oct. 20, 6:16 AM) that escaped my notice was this one: “Terri Schiavo died of natural causes. No one killed her. I suggest you look up the article about her on Wikipedia for some accurate information on the case.” My first reaction to this comment is this: Are you for real, maniac! WIKIPEDIA as an accurate source of information? Again, ARE YOU FOR REAL? It is absolutely INCREDIBLE that anyone could write what you did. You, “Anonymous,” are a DEPRAVED MONSTER and a LIAR.

      It is DOCUMENTED FACT that Terri Schiavo was FORCIBLY DENIED both FOOD and WATER until she expired. The official coroner’s report stated that the proximate cause of Terri Schiavo’s death was DEATH BY DEHYDRATION. Even a SEVEN-YEAR-OLD BOY was stopped by ARMED POLICE from even wetting her lips with water. The evidence that she was forcibly starved and dehydrated to death is so overwhelming that NO ONE who claims to be a human being can deny it.

      After reading all the comments from brain-dead cult-center apologists like you, I am thoroughly convinced that there is nothing on God’s earth that will ever convince any of you. But, fortunately, the great majority of Catholics OF EVERY STRIPE think otherwise. May God forgive you, you miserable wretch.

      Delete
  22. Anon Oct. 21, 11:46PM: You still don't get it??!! I'm guessing you must be a young man itching for a fight. How many more ways must this whole subject be explained to you?

    ReplyDelete
  23. AnonymousOctober 19, 2015 at 7:17 AM
    .............
    "Notwithstanding the FACT that pants for women were introduced and popularized by godless women like Katharine Hepburn and later on with the SEXUAL REVOLUTION, these so-called "traditionalists" here have given them their blessing and declared them modest and perfectly appropriate."



    Anonymous October 19 at 7:17 am, let me be the first to SPIT in your FACE because my mother, a beautiful, young, married, CATHOLIC woman was wearing pants in the 1940s. Being she was very popular I'm sure she helped POPULARIZE this fashion. So I think you better take back your stupid nasty and very JUDGEMENTAL remark about "godless" women.

    Oh and by the way, she was also wearing flattering pantsuits, TO church, in the 1970s. Along with many other women.



    There, I have nothing more to say to this commenter. To the rest, I wonder why do they equate pants with immodesty? How ridiculous. Women in the west have been wearing pants routinely for probably 80 years now, and in other parts of the world much longer. (Loved the Pope Nicholas quote.) But maybe we should go back to the 1920s...the flapper look, anyone? Hmm, a tight skirt 6 inches above the knee, or loose flowing trousers with a tunic top? Which would you choose.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Oh so just because your mom was wearing them that makes it all fine right? WRONG.

    It's a fact that those like Hepburn started it and it was viewed as SCANDALOUS even by non-Catholics and it was revolutionary because it was an attempt to make women equal to men.

    ReplyDelete
  25. As a result of your monomaniacal ravings in this series of comments, those of us of a certain age around here decided to conduct an informal e-mail & telephone poll among our friends and acquaintances who were born at least 60 years ago. Our fourscore or so respondents are all "cradle Catholics," who attended parochial schools, private Catholic high schools, and/or colleges. Although each one is a college-educated professional now, they all came from (skilled) working-class or middle-to-upper-middle -class homes.

    Every one of them recalls their mother's wearing dress pants at some time. Their mothers were all conservative, stay-at-home housewives who were active in their parish and who made sacrifices so their children could benefit from a solid Catholic upbringing. Furthermore, all of them said they recalled that other Catholic mothers in their childhood and adolescence also on occasion wore pants.

    Now, Anon. Oct. 21 6:24 PM, our sample comes from all over the US, so on an anecdotal level at least, it appears as though many decent Catholic women of the '50s found no impropriety or sin in wearing pants. We strongly believe our conclusion could be generalized to the majority of the Catholic population.

    What we suspect is that you are probably a convert to the faith or an un-Churched former Novus Ordite who was born again in the sede cult. You probably have no history with the real Catholic Church, so you rely on the lies and misrepresentations pandered by certain misogynist "traditional" clergy, who know no better themselves.

    No doubt Kate Hepburn -- and her studio publicists --caused a stir way back then, but that all quickly blew over as American women, including salt-of-the-earth Catholic homemakers, adopted the fashion once they realized that pants could be not only stylish but eminently feminine and, above all, modest.

    Dannie Dolan obviously agrees, so why can't you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why dont you post a picture of what you deem are modest pants to see what we're talking about here?

      The ones in the picture here with Lil Dan are skin tight.

      Yeah i was Novus Ordo, but women wearing slacks has always repelled me. It looks horrible and will never look better than a skirt or dress.

      Just like those Novus Ordo "nuns" wearing slacks. You see nothing wrong with that. Disgusting!

      Delete
    2. What are you talking about, man? Are you blind or do you live in a cave?

      Those slacks are not "skin tight."

      You are in definite need of an eye exam -- and some heavy therapy.

      Delete
    3. Ha! You're funny, I'll give you that.

      I was obviously referring to the FIRST picture, with the young girls. The one on the left is wearing jeans and the other one what appear to be slacks, and both are skin tight.

      Delete
    4. Thanks for the laugh, too.

      We don't know in what rural, cult hellhole you've been living or what your social situation is, but the young women in the first photo are definitely NOT wearing skin-tight slacks.

      We're all from the big city, and we can testify that we know skin-tight women's slacks when we see 'em. And we don't see 'em in that photo.

      If that's what you call "skin-tight" then you've missed something in your sad, bitter life. Assuming you're single and never have been married, we suggest you enroll in the cult's swampland "seminary": you've got a real gift for imaginative Comstockery, so you'd be a tremendous asset in helping them extend their already deranged control over the women and girls down there. If you exercise your fervid imagination well enough, they many even let you teach Misogyny 101.

      Delete
    5. You can't even see the one in the left is wearing JEANS, not slacks, and you're calling me a hillbilly?

      Do you know the difference between jeans and slacks home boy?

      I've been in the "big city" too compadre.

      If you don't think that's skin-tight, then you've just confirmed once again that you're all nothing but a pack of liberals obsessed with the Trio. Your whole life revolves around monitoring their every move.

      You pose as the wise men and yet you were under the rule of the Trio for how many years? You were scammed by them and now that you're "out" you still dedicate what's left of your life to them.

      How pathetic. You're the maniacs with this whole blog dedicated to these men.

      Delete
    6. This man sounds like a man who had or will have his wife leave him due to obsessive behavior and a extreme following of the "trio."

      And, I was wondering: you say,"You were scammed by them." I was curious if this means you recognize that these men are scammers?

      Delete
    7. I wont speak about dating or marriage or my relationships with women because i dont want to brag or come off as a bragger. What i will say is that i dont have any problems in this department, if you get my drift. And no i have never been dumped for the reasons you mention, but again i dont want to get into details so i dont come off as a showoff.

      Have you read any of my previous comments? I have said time and time again that i have nothing to do with the Trio nor even live in the States. And yes, by all accounts they seem to be scoundrels.

      Sheesh.

      Delete
    8. And i have never taken the blog authors here seriously because i honestly think theyre not right in the head and have a couple loose screws, to dedicate themselves to this and write all that they have written. I only come for the comic relief and to get more info on the doings of the Trio.

      But the whole thing is downright sinful, even if theyre right, and i have wondered whether i have sinned by indulging myself coming here.

      All this makes me feel like a fool for engaging in a modesty debate with such liberal kooks, I never should have started it.

      Delete
    9. Anon. Oct, 23, 7:37:

      Didn't you read the original post? Dannie also posed with men in jeans (click on the link to see for yourself). So whether one of the young pants-clad women was wearing jeans or not is a moot question. Jeans are a form of pants. Dannie Dolan appears in photos with men and women dressed in jeans and/or pants. Apparently, then, Dan Dolan approves of all forms of pants on women in church. That settles the issue for the SW Ohio cult, at least. Pants, slacks, trousers, jeans, denim, whatever, are OK apparel for men and women in church. Dan Dolan wouldn't have permitted the pix otherwise, or else he's just a hypocritical fool.

      Delete
    10. Don't change the subject.

      Delete
    11. We didn't. We replied directly to your assertion.

      Delete
    12. Yes you did, I said the pants both women are wearing are skin tight and the ones on the left are jeans even, but you keep denying it.

      Well anyone can see it if they enlarge the picture.

      Delete
    13. My point was those are skintight, but you say they're actually totally modest and NOT skin tight, and you're wrong.

      So as I said anyone can enlarge the picture and see for themselves.

      Delete
    14. We must have very different understandings of what "skin-tight" means. They could be wearing a tent and you'd say it was skin tight. We, on the other hand, understand the term literally, and in that strict sense, the pants are definitely NOT skin-tight.

      But even if they were skin-tight (and they're not), they must be considered no offense to modesty because Dan Dolan allowed himself to be photographed with the two women in a formal portrait. (Just look at his expression of contentment and benediction!)

      The only conclusion must be that he approves of the women's apparel both for regular use and for church. He could have refused to pose, and he could have directed his Argentine hosts to to instruct the faithful not to wear jeans, pants (skin-tight or otherwise), logo-sweatshirts etc. The plain fact that he didn't tells us that he has no objections to these styles.

      In truth, we think Dannie was sending a message not only to Gertie gals but to Big Don and the Brooksville cult. He's saying as it were, "Pants like this are OK, ladies, and you, Big Don, better mend your rigorist ways before your womenfolk walk away in disgust from your inappropriate and irrational meddling in their personal lives."

      Delete
    15. Is the entire SSPX full of misogynist priests and bishops? Padre Pio was a misogynist, Cardinal Siri was a misogynist, or maybe YOU are a bunch of liberals?

      Delete
    16. We can't speak for the SSPX. What we can say is that it seems as though the cult masters of Tradistan are. The poor, oppressed women in the cults have to bear ridiculous, shameful burdens because some sicko trad males apparently can't control themselves.

      That, BTW, is why we didn't go into a detailed definition of "skin-tight" pants for Anon. Oct. 24, 5:46 A.M. That guy is so imbalanced that an accurate description would have surely driven him to commit a grave sin.

      Now as for us, we're reactionaries after the fashion of Nicolás Gómez Dávila.

      Delete
    17. It is common knowledge that the SSPX follows the same dress code as the SGG. Bishop Williamson condemns pants. Don't you know this already?

      Delete
    18. We haven't taken the time to review the society's dress codes because our focus is upon the dangerous Tradistani cult masters.

      If as you say the society's code is the same as SGG's -- and we'll take your word for it at this time -- then we'd bet a substantial sum that no SSPX bishop or Williamson has ever allowed himself be photographed in a chapel setting with women in pants and with men in jeans.

      Remember that if the two pictured young women are in pants, then they assisted at the first communion/confirmation in pants. too. That's why we feel that Deacon Dan was sending a very clear, revolutionary message to Trad Nation:"Don't sweat it, folks. It's OK with me. Let Big Don, Williamson, and the SSPX stew in their own sauce! I'm different!"

      Delete
  26. If One-Hand, and his 2 sidekicks for that matter, have always approved of women wearing pants outside the cult center, then why are you reporting this as if it's breaking news? Aren't there older pics as well? Wouldn't the ones at SGG already know of this?

    In fact, didn't you say in some post that the ones at SGG wear pants etc. outside of Mass anyways? So what does it matter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It matters because there are many other less privileged women both at SGG and in chapels affiliated with the cult who still believe that pants are verboten. They need to know that it's OK to wear pants -- that pants have Deacon Dan's seal of approval, as it were.

      If you're an oppressed Gertie gal or Brooksville babe, this IS breaking news.

      Deliverance is not just for the enlightened, you know.

      Delete
  27. What I'm getting at, which you're trying to avoid, is to get you to say that Bishop Williamson is a misogynist, along with Cardinal Siri, Padre Pio and in fact, the Church itself!

    Where have I heard that one before? "The Church hates women. St Paul hated women." Oh yeah, from non-Catholics and enemies of the Church!

    Face it, you're liberals. You use the same arguments as the liberals and enemies of the Church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They themselves have already admitted they're liberals and are up with the times, "emancipated" and "freed" from dressing so "morbidly" and "backwards". They have no respect for modesty.

      Delete
    2. Of course, St. Paul, Cardinal Siri, Padre Pio, and the Church are NOT mysosgynists. (We have no acquaintance of Bp. W.) They were Catholics who knew women and men share an identical nature and final destiny. They knew God created woman as man's companion, not his slave,and the Church has always refuted "any opinion that assigns to women a role essentially inferior to that of man."

      But they wrote in specific times, specific cultural conditions, which moral theology recognizes can change.

      If these holy men were alive today, and if the Church Visible weren't impeded by the heresy of VII and the morbidity of the traddies, pants would be A-OK just as are skirts.

      Dannie for all his obtuseness seems to understand that by his apparent approval.

      Delete