In the most recent number of Sodalitium, the publication of the Institute of Our Mother of Good Counsel, located in Verrua Savoia, Italy, there is an editorial which I found very interesting, and have translated it for you. The piece bears no authorship, but it has Father Ricossa’s fingerprints all over it. It concerns a recently published comment of Ratzinger to an Italian Senator about a book he [Ratzinger] had written a few years ago. This comment is very revealing, as it is a clear admission from Ratzinger that there is a hiatus, that is, gap or separation, between the pre-Vatican II magisterium and that of the Council.
Ratzinger thinks nothing of this separation — the real word is contradiction— between the two teachings. For Ratzinger believes in historicism, which holds that truths are true for their time, but expire and evolve into other “truths” in different historical environments, so that the new truths may contradict the previous ones. It was in this way that the Modernists, in one blow, dispensed with the massive amount of magisterium in the Church’s past which condemns everything they think, do, and say.
Ratzinger is the High Priest of the Nothing-Has-Changed- Religion of the Novus Ordo conservatives, which holds as its unique dogma that there is doctrinal, liturgical, and disciplinary continuity between Vatican II and pre-Vatican II. They see him as the “missing link” between these two systems. Ratzinger’s single poignant comment, however, quoted in the editorial below, explodes their whole theory, and vindicates the sedevacantists.
Much has been said recently about women who have suffered from the sexual assaults of men.
It is true that the conduct of some men is deplorable in this regard, but it is also true that the conduct of some women is deplorable as well.
The 1960s produced a sexual revolution unheard of in the history of the world, which in turn caused a revolution in family life from which we are still reeling, and the end of which is nowhere in sight.
The trend began over one hundred years ago, and gained momentum in World War I. Before the war, for example, women covered their entire bodies with clothing. After the war, the hemlines came up and the necklines came down.
Never in the history of women’s dress, up to about 1918, did women wear skirts above their ankles. It was considered immodest. Even in the eighteenth century, where the necklines were low, women covered their arms to at least three-quarter length, and wore skirts to their ankles. To show one’s bare arms or to wear a skirt higher than the ankles was a sign of a prostitute.
By the 1920s women’s clothing had undergone a radical transformation. So did their behavior. With the advent of the cinema, and especially that of Hollywood, the “glamor girl” look became fashionable, as well as the flirtatious activity which accompanied it. Nevertheless the average respectable woman wore a dress that came to mid-leg length, and was otherwise modest in clothing. The skirts gradually made their way higher during the 1940’s and 1950’s, but in general a woman’s dress was within the norms of modesty.
I say “in general,” because even the 1930s saw the dawn of tight-fitting dresses on women, which were immodest inasmuch as they were too revealing. Later this gave way to a full skirt in the 1950’s, much more modest. But the 1960’s saw the return of the tight dress, and with it the miniskirt, something that the human race had never seen on decent women since the dawn of mankind.
Hollywood became extremely immodest in both dress and behavior in the 1950s. It was the prelude of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Marilyn Monroe was a typical example of this degenerate tendency.
Up to about 1965, most women were married, not divorced, had five or six children, at times more, and were devoted to their homes. With the appearance of the birth control pill in the 1960s, the role and attitudes of women would change radically, and with these changes, family life would suffer immeasurably.
“Freed” from the burden of having and raising children, and urged on by the radical feminists such as Betty Friedan, women left their homes and went out into the workplace. This change was concurrent with the general attitude of sexual freedom in the 1960s, by which people abandoned the inhibitions of previous times, and felt no restraints in pursuing the inclinations of their lower nature. Movies and television took ever greater liberties in this regard. This decline in morals could easily be seen if one were to trace, little by little, the modesty of television in the 1950s to the immodesty of television in our own time. The doses came in small spoonfuls, just as Vatican II did. Little by little decent people were asked to tolerate more and more immodesty.
The effect of all of this revolution in sexual mores, as well as the role of women, is that men and women have been thrown together into situations which are very dangerous. Women are daily interacting with men in the workplace. In many cases they are dressed in such a way as to be immodestly attractive to men. The inevitable result is that, unless the men in the office are very vigilant about the virtue of chastity and fidelity to their wives, some very bad things take place.
The reason why there was, in past times, so much modesty in women’s dress, and the reason why women stayed mostly in the home, is precisely that men have a very hard time controlling their sexual desires.
Although men are principally guilty, the women are partially if not equally guilty. In many if not most cases their dress is sexually enticing, and their conduct with men often invites sexual advances.
Most of these assaults upon women are seen in show business, an environment which is notably loose and never known for its observance of chastity and fidelity. Most of the “victim” ladies in these cases look like lascivious women, and probably did much to cause the assault.
Other cases of assault occur in situations in which men enjoy much power and influence. Sports figures are often guilty of this as well as politicians. There seems to be an aggression that occurs in men as they advance in power and/or fame. Women should not be close to any environments such as these.
While women should not look odd by returning the mode of dress in 1912, they should nonetheless take all the steps necessary, even difficult, expensive, and inconvenient, in order to avoid being an occasion of sin to men, and thereby inviting upon themselves outrages by unscrupulous males.
Saint John Chrysostom, who died in 404, summed it up:
You carry your snare everywhere and spread your nets in all places. You allege that you never invited others to sin. You did not, indeed, by your words, but you have done so by your dress and your deportment. When you have made another sin in his heart, how can you be innocent Tell me, whom does this world condemn? Whom do judges punish? Those who drink poison or those who prepare it and administer the fatal potion? You have prepared the abominable cup, you have given the death dealing drink, and you are more criminal than are those who poison the body; you murder not the body but the soul. And it is not to enemies you do this, nor are you urged on by any imaginary necessity, nor provoked by injury, but out of foolish vanity and pride.
On October 9th, we marked sixty years since the death of Pope Pius XII. It means that we have labored under Modernism for these sixty years, and have watched with horror the disintegration of everything that made our Faith beautiful: Catholic doctrine, good and holy priests, an abundance of devout and zealous religious brothers and nuns, Catholic schools, Catholic universities, Catholic seminaries teeming with holy seminarians aspiring to the priesthood, the traditional Latin Mass, traditional sacraments, the Legion of Decency, religious habits, priests in cassocks and Roman collars, magnificent churches, elaborate ceremonies, Gregorian chant and other beautiful church music, discipline, orthodoxy, modest dress, good morals. I could go on. What I describe is the world of my childhood which, at the time, I took for granted, but which I loved and cherished. Continue reading →
In another decision which gave angst to the Novus Ordo conservatives, Bergoglio issued a document recently declaring that the 1992 catechism of John Paul II was wrong on capital punishment. This is the official text: Continue reading →
Bishop Fellay, who has been, until recently, the head of the Society of Saint Pius X for the past twenty-four years, gave an interview to Tagespost in which he said a few things which deserve attention. Continue reading →
The Youcat (“youth catechism”) published under Ratzinger’s non-papacy.
In all three countries, Ireland, Argentina, and Poland, the guilt for this defection from Catholic morals (see my previous post) must be placed upon the Novus Ordo clergy. For of all the countries of the world these three are among the most predominantly Catholic, and the Catholic clergy were in a perfect position to influence the population away from these moral atrocities. Continue reading →
Shame on Ireland. While strolling through Rome last month, Bishop Selway and I met an Irish lady who asked us to pray for Ireland, because in a few days (May 25th) there would be a referendum concerning abortion.
Ironically the woman was a Protestant, although she was from Galway, which is in the Republic of Ireland, nearly entirely Catholic.
A staggering 66.4% of the Irish, nearly all Catholics, voted in favor of legalizing the murder of innocent babies. The voting followed lines of age: those against were mostly from the older generation; those in favor mostly from the younger generation. My Irish grandfather must be turning in his grave to think that his race would have voted for the legalization of such a heinous crime. If he were alive I could just imagine what he would say, perhaps not entirely repeatable.
Shame on Argentina. The Congress of Argentina, another nearly entirely Catholic country, recently voted to permit abortions to take place up to fourteen weeks of pregnancy.
Shame on Poland. Yet another nearly completely Catholic country, Poland, with deep roots of Catholicism and many well-known saints to its name, recently permitted a “gay pride” parade in Warsaw.
This parade, entirely legal, came only a few months after Poland’s government declared that Christ was the King of Poland.
King of Poland? To proclaim Christ as King of your country, and at the same time to permit sodomites to parade in your capital to show off their pride in their sexual perversions is an act of the grossest hypocrisy. It is pure pharisaism, that is, to pretend piety and devotion on the outside, but to be corrupt interiorly.
It is the same thing as to hang a picture of Christ the King in your home, and then to spit upon it.
Our Lord had very hard words for the Pharisees. The holy Gospel is filled with these hard words, showing a particular disgust that Our Lord had for those who would give God fine words on the outside, but love sin on the inside. In Saint Matthew Our Lord addresses these hypocrites in this way: “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness.” (Matthew XXIII: 27)
Poland has placed a crown of thorns upon the head of their King.