Are formfitting shirts appropriate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Larquetta
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DeniseNY said:
I can’t tell you how many times at meeting and just at work in general that I would get leared at my male co-workers and I was wearing nothing close to a tube top or yoga pants. I was in a knee lenght skirt and jacket. Sorry, whatever was going on in their minds was their fault; not mine.
Click to expand...
How do you know they were “leering” at you, though? Sometimes people read weird things into other people’s facial expressions.
 
Last edited:
When someone talks to your chest and not to your face, that’s learing.
 
alphonsus1 said:
(3) a lustful thought can be consented to in a second (just like other sins can be committed quickly)
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that would constitute a mortal sin. Full consent of the will takes longer than a second. You’re not thinking clearly in that first second when a lustful thought / situation arises. I believe St. Thomas Aquinas taught that if the sinful thought passes through your mind, there is no sin…if you latch onto the thought for a moment, there’s a venial sin. It can become a mortal sin if you then latch on, and continue to hold on entertaining the thought. Your suggestion that a mortal sin can be committed in a single second basically rules out salvation for all mankind…that would lead to utter despair in all of us.
 
First, yoga pants, or any clothing that shows what shouldn’t be shown in public is immodest. Period. I have never walked around in public in an ultra tight Speedo, ever. See, the same rules apply to men as women.

Second, it is ad-hominem to make an argument about the person and not about the substance of his argument. I could be an asexual, a homosexual, a pansexual, a heterosexual, it doesn’t matter. What I am personally attracted to is irrelevant to the logical consistency of my argument. Modesty is determined by whether the clothing could cause lust in general, not based on whether it succeeds in causing lust in any particular individual.

My argument: showing two regions of the body that should not be shown in public can put lustful suggestions into men’s minds. Responding that a lot of clothing could show cleavage does nothing to refute my point: some clothing shows more cleavage than other clothing, and there is definitely a line regarding what is too revealing (even liberals have a line, but Catholics should have higher lines).

Second, I am not the one “making up rules.” Morality is objective, not rules. It is like the axioms of math, True regardless of whether you want it to be or not. I am giving the advice of St. Alphonsus and G. P. Gury, the two theologians citied by the Magisterium in all the decrees about sexual morality in the 1800s.
 
Last edited:
No, it is not contradictory whatsoever for men to practice custody of their eyes, vigilance, and flee from lust, but at the same time for women to also dress modestly. These are in no way contradictory, whatsoever!
 
Last edited:
The idea that a mortal sin can be committed hundreds of times a day, each mortal sin a full, deliberate rejection of God that occurs within the space of a literal second, sounds absolutely absurd. How could anyone be saved? We would be looking at 99.999999999999999% of devout, practicing Catholics going to hell if mortal sin is so easy… it is absolutely impossible to make a deliberate, full act of the will in a literal second.

What about all the other categories of grave sin? In the Gospel, Our Lord preaches about the necessity of caring for the poor more than he preached about sexual immorality. He cites failing to care for the poor as the cause of damnation in Matthew 25. Have you ever, for a split second, decided you could use your resources for yourself rather than for the poor? By this way of thinking, there’s another mortal sin. It would never end.

Can you confirm that you have discussed your understanding with several priests in person?
 
Last edited:
So, over a hundred posts in, let’s make up our minds.

1870s Victorian?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Or the even earlier Regency?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Perhaps the burden can be placed on the men to wear something that can aid them in the custody of their eyes… like those blinder things they put on horses? The responsibility should be shared after all.
 
Last edited:
Interesting note on the Regency period:

ateliernostalgia.wordpress.com

Historical accuracy – Regency

The term ‘historical accuracy’ is often found in historical costuming. It’s that elusive ‘getting it exactly right’ in making historical clothing. Making something whi…
ateliernostalgia.wordpress.com ateliernostalgia.wordpress.com
Some portraits showing the point for the neckline to sit. The top-row ladies all wear chemisettes in different types to cover up (yes, they’re often transparent, covering up is relative…). The bottom row are some of the lower necklines I could find. Notice though, how even the ladies in the top row have very low necklines on their dresses. Just above the mid-bust point was very common. Remember, in these days ankles were considered decidedly more sexy than cleavage.
Click to expand...
If you scroll down the page a bit, you can see examples of the ample Regency period cleavage. I don’t want to paste the pictures directly, as some here might struggle with that.
 
Last edited:
When you use the word “but” don’t you think you’re negating what you first wrote?
 
Let me elaborate on my response above, and clarify that I am not intending to attack you on a personal level… The Magisterium, as summarized in the Catechism, clearly teaches that mortal sin requires full consent of the will. I am not disputing your quotes, but I questioning the interpretation and asking if you have confirmed that interpretation with priests in person. I don’t think a “moment” necessarily equates to a “second”. I have a very hard time accepting the idea that full consent of the will can be given in a literal second, especially when one is exposed to a temptation beyond one’s control. To INSTANTLY, as you keep saying, shake off a temptation, is not necessarily possible for most people, short of a great deal of supernatural grace and mental maturity. The mind simply doesn’t reason that quickly. If one entertains the thought for a few seconds, after realizing its sinful and ploughing ahead anyway…then yes, that is sinful. Within the first second? I don’t think you’ve even yet consciously registered that its a sinful thought…
 
I disagree. If you committed 10 homicides in a very brief period of time, aim and shoot, aim and shoot, etc, each second, does that mean that you are guaranteed to not be fully culpable? No! Depending on the individual, and judged by God (please read St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas), it is entirely possible to commit a mortal sin in a moment.

Second, it does not follow that just because we “can” commit a mortal sin in a second implies everyone does commit it in a second. But it is also entirely possible that lots of mortal sins of complacencies are committed in a moment. I just wanted to say that it is entirely possible, but definitely not guaranteed. Nonetheless, since hell, an eternity of torture, is at stake, in St. Alphonsus’s words, what folly is it to leave your salvation to a perhaps?

Finally, yes, St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Alphonsus, didn’t merely think the majority of mankind went to Hell, but they thought the vast majority went to Hell.

As the Magisterium declared on February 11, 1661, in Denzinger 2013, on the Material Graveness of Sexual Matters: “Since lightness of matter does not exist in sexual matters, or, if it does, it does not exist in the present case…,” combined with Cardinal Muller saying on EWTN that any attack against the sixth command is a mortal sin, combined with Jesus my Lord and Savior comparing merely looking at a woman lustfully to adultery, combined with the Holy See’s decrees on proximate occasion of sin also being mortal (complacencies), etc, all strongly indicate that complacencies are indeed mortal sins.

As far as “other categories of sin,” these can be mortal too, but it depends on the circumstances and object. But as I stated above, sexual sins, with deliberate consent and knowledge are almost surely mortal! Since nature inclines us to impurity, this sin is definitely the worst of the worst for men between the ages of 15-40. Nature only occasionally tempts us to commit sins of selfishness. However, nature strongly tempts us to commit impurity. Therefore, nowhere near the vigilance that is necessary to overcome sins of impurity is necessary to overcome sins against charity.
 
Last edited:
No, “not a contradiction” means two things can be True at the same time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top