Psychology of Woman
Relationships Between Men and
Women
In Children's Eyes
Hair Care & Clothing |
|
Men's Attire Worn by Women
by Giuseppe Cardinal
Siri
Genoa, June 12, 1960
To the Reverend Clergy
To all Teaching sisters
To the beloved sons of Catholic Action
To Educators intending truly to follow Christine
Doctrine.
The first signs of our times of our late arriving spring
indicate that there is this year a certain increase in the use of men�s
dress by girls and women, even family mothers. Up until 1959, in Genoa,
such dress usually meant the person was a tourist, but now it seems to
be a significant number of girls and women from Genoa itself who are choosing
at least on pleasure trips to wear men�s dress (men�s trousers).
The extension of this behavior obliges us to take serious thought, and
We ask those to whom this Notification is addressed to kindly lend to the
problem all the attention it deserves from anyone aware of being in any
way responsible before God.
We seek above all to give a balanced moral judgment
upon the wearing of men�s dress by women. In fact our thoughts can only
bear upon the moral question. (Note 2)
Firstly, when it comes to covering of the female body, the wearing of
men�s trousers by women cannot be said to constitute as such a grave offense
against modesty, because trousers certainly cover more of a woman�s body
than do modern women�s skirts.
Secondly, however, clothes to be modest need not only
to cover the body but also not to cling too closely to the body. (Note
3) Now it is true that much feminine clothing today clings closer
than do some trousers, but trousers can be made to cling closer, in fact
generally they do, so the tight fit of such clothing gives us no less grounds
for concern than does exposure of the body. So the immodesty of men�s trousers
on women is an aspect of the problem which is not to be left out of an
over-all judgment upon them, even if it is not to be artificially exaggerated
either.
However, it is a different aspect of women�s wearing
of men�s trousers which seems to us the gravest. (Note 4)
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:--
Male Dress Changes the Psychology of Woman
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". (Note 5) Secondly, ever
since men have been men, the clothing a person wears, demands, imposes
and modifies that persons 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 women wearing man�s dress always
more or less indicates her reacting to her femininity as though it is inferiority
when in fact it is only diversity. The perversion of her psychology is
clear to be seen. (Note 6)
These reasons, summing up many more, are enough to warn us how wrongly
women are made to think by wearing men�s dress.
Male Dress Tends to Vitiate Relationships between Men
and Women
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
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
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 is
hindered from putting on the brakes, then relationships between man 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-feminised,
then defenses are undermined and weakness increases. (Note
7)
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 before they enter upon adolescence, shows how much
the sense of their mother counts. Children are as sensitive as they 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 to be traced out and not
for good in these early 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.
Let us think seriously on the import of everything said so far, even
if women�s appearing in man�s dress does not immediately give rise to all
the upset caused by grave immodesty.
The changing of feminine psychology does fundamental
and, in the long run, irreparable damage to the family, to conjugal fidelity,
to human affections and to human society. (Note 8)
True, the effects of wearing unsuitable dress are not all to be seen within
a short time. But one must think of what is being slowly and insidiously
worn down, torn apart, perverted.
Is any satisfying reciprocity between husband and wife imaginable, if
feminine psychology be changed? Or is any true education of children imaginable,
which is so delicate in its procedure, so woven of imponderable factors
in which the mother�s intuition and instinct play the decisive part in
those tender years? What will these women be able to give their children
when they will so long have worn trousers that their self-esteem goes more
by their competing with the men than by their functioning as women?
Why, we ask, ever since men have been men, or rather since they became
civilized, why have men in all times and places been irresistibly borne
to make a differentiated division between the functions of the two sexes?
Do we not have here strict testimony to the recognition by all mankind
of a truth and a law above man?
To sum up, wherever women wear men�s dress, it is to be considered a
factor in the long run tearing apart human order.
The logical consequence of everything presented so
far is that anyone in a position of responsibility should be possessed
by a Sense of Alarm in the true and proper meaning of the word, a severe
and decisive Alarm. (Note 9)
We address a grave warning to parish priests. To all priests in general
and to confessors in particular, to members of every kind of association,
to all religious, to all nuns, especially to teaching Sisters.
We invite them to become clearly conscious of the problem so that action
will follow. This consciousness is what matters. It will suggest the appropriate
action in due time. But let it not counsel us to give way in the face of
inevitable change, as though we are confronted by a natural evolution of
mankind, and so on!
Men may come and men may go, because God has left
plenty of room for the to and fro of their free-will; but the substantial
lines of nature and the not less substantial lines of Eternal Law have
never changed, are not changing and never will change. There are
bounds beyond which one may stray as far as one sees fit, but to do so
ends in death; (Note 10) there are limits which
empty philosophical fantasizing may have one mock or not to take seriously,
but they put together an alliance of hard facts and nature to chastise
anybody who steps over them. And history has sufficiently taught, with
frightening proof from the life and death of nations, that the reply to
all violators of the outline of "humanity" is always, sooner or later,
catastrophe.
From the dialectic of Hegel onwards, we have had dinned
in our ears what are nothing but fables, and by dint of hearing them so
often, many people end up by getting used to them, if only passively. But
the truth of the matter is that Nature and Truth, and the Law bound up
in both, go their imperturbable way, and they cut to pieces the simpletons
who upon no grounds whatsoever believe in radical and far-reaching changes
in the very structure of man. (Note 11)
The consequences of such violations are not a new
outline of man, but disorders, hurtful instability of all kinds, the frightening
dryness of human souls, the shattering increase in the number of human
castaways, driven long since out of people�s sight and mind to live out
their decline in boredom, sadness, and rejection. Aligned on the wrecking
of the eternal norms are to be found the broken families, lives cut short
before their time, hearths and homes gone cold, old people cast to one
side, youngsters willfully degenerate and at the end of the line, souls
in despair and taking their own lives. All of which human wreckage gives
witness to the fact that the "line of God" does not give way, nor does
it admit of any adaptation to the delirious dreams of the so-called philosophers!
(Note12)
We have said that those in whom the present Notification is addressed
are invited to take serious alarm at the problem at hand. Accordingly they
know what they have to say, starting with little girls on their mother�s
knee.
They know that without exaggerating or turning into fanatics, they will
need to strictly limit how far they tolerate women dressing like men, as
a general rule.
They know they must never be so weak as to let anyone believe that they
turn a blind eye to a custom which is slipping downhill and undermining
the moral standing of all institutions.
They, the priests, know the line that they have to
take in the confessional, while not holding women to be dressing like men
to be automatically a grave fault, must be sharp and decisive. (Note
13)
Everybody will kindly give thought to the need for a united line of
action, reinforced on every side by the cooperation of all men of good
will and all enlightened minds, so as to create a true dam to hold back
the flood.
Those of you responsible for souls in whatever capacity
understand how useful it is to have for allies in this defensive campaign,
men of the arts, the media and the crafts. The position taken by fashion
design houses, their brilliant designers and the clothing industry, is
of crucial importance in this whole question. Artistic sense, refinement
and good taste meeting together can find suitable but dignified solutions
as to the dress for women to wear when they must use a motorcycle or engage
in this or that exercise or work. What matters is to preserve modesty,
together with the eternal sense of femininity, that femininity which more
than anything else all children will continue to associate with the face
of mother. (Note 14)
We do not deny that modern life sets problems and
makes requirements unknown to our grandparents. But we state that there
are values more needing to be protected than fleeting experiences, and
that for anybody of intelligence there are always good sense and good taste
enough to find acceptable and dignified solutions to problems as they come
up. (Note 15)
Out of charity, (i.e. love of God) we are fighting against the flattening
out of mankind, against the attack upon those differences on which rests
the complementarity of man and woman.
When we see a woman in trousers, we should think not so much of her
as of all mankind, of what it will be when women will have masculinized
themselves for good. Nobody stands to gain by helping to bring about a
future age of vagueness, ambiguity, imperfection and, in a word, monstrosities.
This letter of Ours is not addressed to the public, but to those responsible
for souls, for education, for Catholic associations. Let them do their
duty, and let them not be sentries caught asleep at their post while evil
crept in.
Giuseppe Cardinal Siri
Archbishop of Genoa
June 12, 1960
Translator�s Notes
-
At the end of the Cardinal�s Notification, he explains
that it is not addressed by him directly to the public at large, but only
indirectly, through the Catholic leaders here listed. However, that was
in 1960, when the Church still had a framework of leaders. In 1977, those
capable by their Faith of responding to the Cardinal�s instruction are
scattered amongst the public at large, to whom therefore his instruction
is fittingly diffused. (Back)
-
The Cardinal heads off many objections at the outset when
he reminds us by what right he tackles such a subject at all: as a teacher
of Faith and morals. Who can reasonably deny that clothing (especially,
but not only women�s) involves morals and so the salvation of souls? (Back)
-
Jeans are now virtually universal. How many women�s jeans
are not tight-fitting? (Back)
-
Trousers on women are worse than mini-skirts, said Bishop
de Castro Mayer, because while mini-skirts attack the senses, women�s trousers
attack man�s highest spiritual faculty, the mind. Cardinal Siri explains
why, in depth. (Back)
-
When the women wish to be like men (somebody said the
feminists are more scornful of womanhood than anybody), it is up to the
men to make women proud of being women. (Back)
-
The enormous increase since 1960 in the practice and public
flaunting of the vice against nature is surely to be attributed in part
to this perversion of psychology. (Back)
-
When woman is feminine, she has the strength God gives
to her. When she is de-feminised, she has only the strength she gives herself.
(Back)
-
For an example of this damage, see the relationship between
the sexes as portrayed in Rock music. (Back)
-
In 1997, can we say the Cardinal was exaggerating? (Back)
-
All great art and literature testifies to this moral
structure of the universe which one violates at one�s peril, and which
is as much part of the natural order as is its physical structure. The
plays of Shakespeare are a famous example. The Cardinal is here at the
heart of the question. (Back)
-
It has been said, God is ready to forgive always, man
sometimes, but nature, never. (Back)
-
The Cardinal is not just indulging in rhetoric. For an
example of "human wreckage", witness Pink Floyd�s misery. (Back)
-
How much wisdom and balance in all these apparently severe
conclusions of the Cardinal! (Back)
-
In other words, the femininity of the mother, not of
Eve. (Back)
-
In 1997 we see all around us the age of monstrosities
which in 1960 Cardinal was doing his best to prevent. In the Cardinal�s
own country, Italy, the birth rate has been the lowest in all of Europe!
Italian youth is devastated. The Cardinal was not listened to then. Will
he be listened to now? Pink Floyd has the problem. Cardinal Siri has the
answer. (Back)
Hair Care & Clothing Material
Added by Fr. Lucian Pulvermacher, O.F.M.Cap.
August 20, 1997.
The following texts have to do with conduct in Church. Furthermore
we may draw some conclusions for our daily life in regard to hair care.
We quote from the first letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians, chapter
two:
(12) �For as the woman is of the man, so also
is the man by the woman; but all things of God.
(13) You yourselves judge. Doth it become
a woman to pray unto God uncovered?
(14) Doth not even nature itself each you that
a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him?
(15) But if a woman nourish her hair it is a
glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
(16) But if any man seem to be contentious, we
have no such custom, nor the Church of God.�
Whether men and women are in Church or in the wide world of civil life
they always stand before God their creator and judge.
Unless special circumstances demand otherwise the haircuts of men and
women must be distinct. The man who gets a woman�s hair cut and make
up gives up his manly appearance. The woman who gets a man�s hair
cut gives up her feminine appearance. What is true of clothing is
equally true of hair fashions. Unisex clothing and unisex haircuts
have the same baneful effects as explained above by Cardinal Siri.
We are dealing with an outward sign of an inward reality. God
made Adam first, and He took the body of Eve from the body of Adam.
God did not just make Adam out of the slime of the earth and then make
Eve out of the slime of the earth; He made Adam so that he alone represents
the whole human race. Eve has no independent creation of her body,
since it was taken from the body of Adam.
By the ordinances of God, for all time, the woman has to be subject
to man. Catholics merely have to study the Mass formulary for weddings
to understand what I have just written.
Here is the EPISTLE of the Mass (Eph. 5, 22-33):
�Brethren: Let wives be subject to their husbands
as to the Lord; because a husband is head of the wife, just as Christ is
head of the Church, being Himself Savior of the body. But just as
the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands
in all things. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved
the Church, and delivered Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her,
cleansing her in the bath of water by means of the word; in order that
He might present to Himself the Church in all her glory, not having spot
or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she might be holy and without blemish.
Even thus ought husbands also to love their wives as their own bodies.
He who loves his own wife, loves himself. For no one ever hated his
own flesh; on the contrary he nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ also
does the Church (because we are members of His body, made from His flesh
and from His bones). �For this cause a man shall leave his father
and mother, and cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh.�
This is a great mystery - I mean in reference to Christ and to the Church.
However, let each one of your also love his wife just as he loves himself;
and let the wife respect her husband.�
We understand that water is made of H2O (two parts
of hydrogen and one part of oxygen). Natural law requires these two
different elements in right combination to make the one product - water.
Husband and wife are such different objects to make up a marriage, and
society must always keep those objects distinct in mind and in external
appearances.
Clothing
Over and over see unisex not only in the shape but also in the type of
material used in their garments. In the prayers of the Church in
regard to women martyrs frequently they are refereed to as the fragile
sex. Denim and such-like sturdy and rugged materials ordinarily
should not be incorporated into women�s dresses. A baby is fragile,
and we do not expect it to be dresses in denim clothing. It just
is not fitting. Likewise, the fragile sex must dress in fragile materials,
according to the rules of common sense.
Once again, a society that violates natural law will be punished by
natural law, and a society that obeys natural law will be rewarded by natural
law. The choice is ours!
�truecatholic.us
|