Virtual Choir, Cheating & Women in Pants

TIA,

Beautiful! I share with you this amazing accomplishment of cloistered Carmelite nuns around the world who came together through Skype to sing a song in honor of St. Teresa of Avila under the direction of an American maestro.

I hope you and your readers will enjoy it as much as I did.

To watch click here.

     Robert Banaugh, Ph.D.

Dear TIA,

Re: 'Gay' Rights Hit Roadblocks around the World

I don't believe the 'impartiality' of Mr. Richard Stadherr.

Reason 1:

Using Wikipedia's webpage presenting the US population by states according to the 2010 Census List of U.S. states and territories by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, below.



I added together the populations of the 'Black' and 'Yellow' states from the map in the article "'Gay' Rights Hit Roadblocks Around the World," by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.. It is the map below.



As for the 19 'Black' states that are "States with statute or judicial decision allowing same sex marriage" and the 2 'Yellow' states that "state DOMA law but allows civil union or domestic partnership": It comes to a total of 144,214,804, while the total US population of the 50 states, including DC, is 316,128,839. The result is less than 46%. So, Mr. Stadherr is wrong when he says, "Those states recognizing gay marriage and civil unions account for 52% of the population."

Reason 2:

Stadherr says, "I'm not staking a claim on either side of this debate, but to claim you are winning because you have Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota and South Dakota on your side, while the other side has California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois seems a little disingenuous."

Stadherr seems to have 'forgotten' Texas, Florida, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan. These can hardly be considered secondary states! Texas (26,448,193) is 2nd behind California in population and 2nd behind Alaska is size. Florida is 4th in population and Ohio is 7th.

Reason 3:

If one looks at the map, most of the 'Black' states (12 of the 19 'Black' states) lie in the small but densely populated northeastern tip of the USA. The population of that northeastern tip is 63,444,091. It would be interesting to investigate the history of homosexual activities and maneuvers in that region and see if they were anything like the dictatorial tactics that occurred in California. If they were, then the 'Black' color of that region would be highly doubtful from the standpoint of "accounting for the population" as Stadherr affirms.

If we exclude California from the calculations (population 38,332,521), that small northeastern tip accounts for well over half, 60% to be exact, of the 105,882,283 represented in the 'Black' and 'Yellow' states. (144,214,804 - 38,332,521 = 105,882,283. 63,444,091/105,882,283 = 60% ). The remaining population of only 42,438,192 (105,882,283 - 63,444,091 = 42,438,192 ), supposedly "represented" by their color, is spread over the only 8 remaining 'Black' and 'Yellow' states. Not very representative of the Country as a whole, is it ?

Reason 4:

California (which is clearly the elephant in the room with 38,332,521) must be excluded from the above calculations since, as TIA correctly pointed out, Homosexual "Marriage" was defeated, not once, but twice in that state: in 2000 (Prop 22) and again 2008 (Prop 8).

It was forced upon California. It was literally imposed on them in direct opposition to the double-vote of the people. So the population of that state is clearly NOT represented by the 'Black' color painted over that state.

On the contrary, the elections prove that California must be counted as a 'Blue' state if the color of the state is supposed to "account for the population." This fact is even more significant if we remember that California is home to the nation's 'Sodom and Gomorrah' - San Francisco in the north, and the tireless loudspeaker of anti-family values - Hollywood in the south.

Just thought I'd add this to the more-than-sufficient response of TIA.

Keep up the good work!

     In Jesus and Mary,

     M.J.

Hi,

I'm A.D., the one who called asking about one of your articles on women wearing pants. Here is the link for the article.

My first question concerns this statement, specifically the quoted portion below:

Deuteronomy is very clear on this point: “A woman shall not be clothed with a man’s apparel; neither shall a man use woman’s apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God “(22:5). With this base, the Church consistently and constantly condemned the use of trousers by women.

Now, I don't agree with women wearing pants either, and I think they never should, but I would like to have solid evidence if I were to tell someone about this.

So, where is the evidence that "the Church consistently and constantly condemned the use of trousers by women"? Not that I doubt what you say, but I would like to have solid evidence that I could show someone.

The example of St. Thomas you give following this paragraph doesn't specifically refer to pants, so I hope there is something else. You also say, after quoting St. Thomas: "Similar orientation can be found in any good book on Morals before Vatican II." Could you give me any specific good books on morals before V-2?

I would think all you need to condemn definitively the use of pants by women is Deuteronomy 22:5 because, if that passage doesn't apply in this case, then what in the world would it apply to?

I hope you answer soon.

     God bless.

     A.D.


Dr. Horvat responds:

Hello A.D.,

I am somewhat confused by your position and questions. At times you appear to be an objector; at times a supporter.

If you believe that Deuteronomy is clear on the point that women should not wear men’s clothing, and that nothing else is necessary, then why not use this argument?

The Church consistently defended this point by stating the differences between men and women and their roles in the family and society. Until Vatican II, this teaching was consistent, as you can read here.

There are as well many papal warnings against the bad fashion trends made by Pope Pius XII, who saw with dread the role of women changing and women assuming a revolutionary character in the home and society. Making these warnings, he was re-affirming consistent Church teaching on Family and Morals. You can read many such warrnings in the work The Woman in the Modern World, edited by the Monks of Solesmes and published by the Daughters of St. Paul in 1959.

You can find similar warnings in works by Henri Delassus, L’Esprit Familial dans la Maison, dans la Cité et dans l’État and La Conjuration Anti-Chrétienne. You will also find sound Catholic principles set out in La Familia sigue el Derecho Natural y Cristiano by Cardinal Isidro Gomás y Tomás, Archbishop of Toledo. Regarding women wearing trousers, this phenomenon only occurred with the revolutionary customs of the 20th century. I would suggest you quote this letter by Cardinal Giuseppe Siri. He applies past teaching to the disturbing fashion trend he saw emerging. It is what I suggest you do also.

     Cordially,

     Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.