“The sins which cause most souls to go to hell are the sins of the flesh.”—Bl. Jacinta of Fatima

“Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much.” – Our Lady of Fatima, 1917

Nota Bene I probably have more female friends than male friends striving for holiness, so this is not a dig on women.  Indeed, we priests are usually harder on men than women, so this is going to be an “equalizer” blog post.  The fact is that anybody (man or woman) who tempts another (man or woman) through immodesty becomes “the Tempter” to the other. However, due to the fact that more women in the Western Hemisphere dress gravely immodest than men and due to the fact men are more visually wired in their concupiscence than women, the following will refer primarily to female modesty. 1

When a man sees an immodestly dressed woman (as most women in the summer in first world countries are wont to do) he is given a choice to lust or not.  Although the original sin in the Garden was probably not lust, this decision is very much like Adam’s initial decision to obey or disobey God as Satan was goading on the couple before the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  Most women would naturally retort to this analogy:  “Well, it’s not my fault he’s tempted if I’m just dressed for a comfortable summer and he can’t control himself.”

I disagree with this retort, but let’s say her retort were true that it’s not her responsibility.  Even if her retort were true, still nobody would doubt she has the freedom that morning that she chose out of her wardrobe the items she was going to wear.  Now consider in my previous sentence, “much like Adam had a choice to sin before Satan goading the couple on before the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” we must ask the question:  Who is the immodest woman like in this analogy?  The immodest woman is not like the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because a tree is an inanimate object without a will.  The immodest woman is not like God because God tempts no one.—James 1:13.   She is not even like the first woman Eve in my analogy since Adam could have protected Eve, but the modern Catholic wife will not even allow her husband to protect her from her own immodesty.

Thus, the immodest woman acts as Satan himself in the Garden.

This is because the immodest woman makes the decision to tempt another by what is worn, whether guilt is admitted or not.  Even if under the pretext of comfort, few can deny her tiny shorts are a temptation to her brother falling into sin.  Of course, she has chosen to wear them.  Again, we all know Adam’s sin was greater than Eve’s in not protecting Eve, but even the “Catholic feminist” today will claim she does “not need to be protected” from a bad wardrobe by her husband “babysitting my decisions.”  Fair enough, but then she will answer to God, not her husband, for the thousands of men she tempts all summer as she listens to no one except her conscience.

Ironically, as the “Catholic feminist” woman dresses herself in the morning, she would claim that she hopes her brothers in Christ pass the gauntlet she has thrown down and that he avoid lust. (Yes, even immodestly-dressed non-Christian feminists complain about the “male gaze”!) But the “Catholic feminist” who is now dressed worse than a prostitute in the 19th century (yes, there were laws then that even prostitutes abided by) must now remember it will not go well for her on judgment day that she has willfully chosen to play the part of the Tempter in dressing immodestly.

Most American Catholic women would cheer on a priest preaching against pornography, but then the majority of them would be infuriated if the same priest preached the next weekend against women wearing pants. I am not saying these are equal issues in moral theology.  But the anger I have seen in women against me for encouraging modesty proves that feminism is an idol and that most American Catholic women have sunk their nails deep into this idol without knowing it. Maybe this is why Sr. Lucy after the Fatima apparitions said so many souls go to hell because of immodesty—it makes immodest tempters also become arrogant tempters.

Our Lady of the Rosary Library reports on a deceased but holy bishop from Brazil and his commentary on the difference between long-skirts and pants on women:  “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.  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.”

Although I am not against women voting, it is interesting that Pew Research reports, “Over the last nine presidential elections…women have consistently voted for Democratic presidential candidates at higher rates than men.” Indeed, a male-only vote would have produced exclusively Republican Presidential elections over the past 50 years.  So, considering that we are now in a full communist coup under an unelected democrat”President,” and considering that Mary warned that the errors of Russia (including feminism) would lead to the “annihilation of nations” if Russia was not adequately consecrated by a Pope, then put this all together and it becomes clear that feminism (woman’s disobedience to man) and papal disobedience to Mary (earth’s disobedience to heaven) now play a major role in the annihilation of the United States. Apparently “annihilation of nations” can actually happen from within…all the while I was looking up for nuclear warheads.

All of this theology and history brings us right back to the Garden:  The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was good for food, pleasurable to the eyes and makes one wise.  (Gen 3:6) So also we see the proud and destructive immodesty of all feminism.  Notice that pride is the hallmark of satanic spirituality.  The solution to the three above marks that caused man and woman to fall is now in the Gospel of Jesus Christ:  poverty, chastity and obedience.  Yes, everyone likes the idea of a Franciscan monk living out poverty, chastity and obedience, but why is it that the notion of a married woman living chastity and obedience before her husband has become so distasteful even to the modernist Catholic family?   This is because feminism (connected to the Fatima vision of hell with feminism as central to Marxism) rules the minds of the average Catholic family today.  And the only way out of this tailspin to hell is by re-discovering the chastity and obedience given by Christ to families, as well as those in religion.